[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Backport for "Add back socket for polling of events immediately..."

[Raghavendra G]

Replying to all queries here:

* Is it a bug or performance enhancement?
  Its a performance enhancement. No functionality is broken if this patch
is not taken in.

* Are there performance numbers to validate the claim?
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c9

* Are there any existing users who need this enhancement?
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c27

  Though not sure what branch Zhang Huan is on. @Zhang your inputs are
needed here.

* Do I think this patch _should_ go into any of the released branches?
  Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. I am fine with this patch
not making into any of released branches. But, I do think there are users
who are affected with this (Especially EC/Disperse configurations). If they
want to stick to the released branches, pulling into released branches will
help them. @Pranith/Xavi, what are your opinions on this?

regards,
Raghavendra

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/28/2017 09:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com
>> <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Shyam wrote:
>>     > Or this one: https://review.gluster.org/15036 <
>> https://review.gluster.org/15036>
>>     >
>>     > This is backported to 3.8/10 and 3.11 and considering the size and
>> impact of
>>     > the change, I wanted to be sure that we are going to accept this
>> across all
>>     > 3 releases?
>>     >
>>     > @Du, would like your thoughts on this.
>>     >
>>     > @niels, @kaushal, @talur, as release owners, could you weigh in as
>> well
>>     > please.
>>     >
>>     > I am thinking that we get this into 3.11.1 if there is agreement,
>> and not in
>>     > 3.11.0 as we are finalizing the release in 3 days, and this change
>> looks
>>     > big, to get in at this time.
>>
>>
>> Given 3.11 is going to be a new release, I'd recommend to get this fix
>> in (if we have time). https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17402/ is dependent
>> on this one.
>>
>
> It is not a fix Atin, it is a more fundamental change to request
> processing, with 2 days to the release, you want me to merge this?
>
> Is there a *bug* that will surface without this change or is it a
> performance enhancement?
>
>
>>     >
>>     > Further the change is actually an enhancement, and provides
>> performance
>>     > benefits, so it is valid as a change itself, but I feel it is too
>> late to
>>     > add to the current 3.11 release.
>>
>>     Indeed, and mostly we do not merge enhancements that are non-trivial
>> to
>>     stable branches. Each change that we backport introduces the chance on
>>     regressions for users with their unknown (and possibly awkward)
>>     workloads.
>>
>>     The patch itself looks ok, but it is difficult to predict how the
>> change
>>     affects current deployments. I prefer to be conservative and not have
>>     this merged in 3.8, at least for now. Are there any statistics in how
>>     performance is affected with this change? Having features like this
>> only
>>     in newer versions might also convince users to upgrade sooner, 3.8
>> will
>>     only be supported until 3.12 (or 4.0) gets released, which is approx.
>> 3
>>     months from now according to our schedule.
>>
>>     Niels
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     maintainers mailing list
>>     maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
>>     http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>     <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>



-- 
Raghavendra G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20170529/1c2912a5/attachment.html>