2014-11-05 17:00 GMT+08:00 Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Wei-Chung Cheng wrote: >> 2014-11-04 17:11 GMT+08:00 Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Cheng Wei-Chung wrote: >> >> Dear all: >> >> >> >> I know that the default precise repo did not have libgoogle-perftools4. >> >> It should only have libgoogle-perftools0. >> >> In the situation that we add the Ubuntu Cloud Archive will bring >> >> libgoogle-perftools4 with havana icehouse, juno and later version. >> >> It will make conflict with ceph if we have other softwares like >> >> mongodb that depends on libgoogle-perftools4. >> >> >> >> I found the following feature: >> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8039 >> >> Is this feature still haven't done, right? >> > >> > Right, it's not done yet. >> >> OK, could I help to complete it? > > 1- Patches to update ceph.spec.in and debian/control > - make sure it is available and builds on all of the supported > platforms (precise, trusty, el6, el7, fc20) > 2- QA > 3- Test upgrade path > OK, I will do precise and trusty first. >> >> I try to build the ceph version 0.87 with libgoogle-perftools4 and >> >> upgrade from firefly in my test environment. >> >> >> >> It looks work normally. I think ceph can work on >> >> libgoogle-perftools0/libgoogle-perftools4. >> > >> > Great! It just needs patches to the packaging files, to go through >> > testing, and then we need to make backported packages (possibly/probably) >> > for a few older distros. >> > >> > It will be a bit awkward to to changed this for a stable release like >> > firefly, though. How disruptive will that be? >> > >> > sage >> >> I also have simple I/O tests with openstack in my environment this weekend. >> If these tests are OK, I think we could make backported packages and >> test it again? >> >> for change from a stable relase: >> In my solution, I make sure the other ceph nodes and OSD processes are alive. >> Upgrade only one node in the same time, because it will make some osd down for >> a while due to removing ceph with libgoogle-perftools0. >> In this stage, we need to remove libgoogle-perftools0 and install >> libgoogle-perftools4 >> and its releated package. >> >> After that, install a new ceph package and OSDs will resume working normally. > > I don't think there should be a problem with the upgrade itself.. the 0 > and 4 versions are different files and IIRC you can even have multiple > versions install simultaneously. Mostly I'm worried about issues with the > package management during upgrade. I don't think it should be a problem > but it needs to be tested. I think version 0 and 4 would conflict. I try to have multiple version install. In my experience, it could not work. We need to consider that the issue with package management dring upgrade. I will test first with precise, trusty and looks what issue we may meet. > > The bigger issue is that for a stable release like firefly or dumpilng, > this is potentially a "big" change in a stable series that is supposed to > be getting minimal fixes. Any opinions here? > > sage I will test dumpling and firefly after I have done the task about packaging and testing the upgrade. The best case is that let user upgrade by apt/yum right? If we can use apt/yum upgrade, I think that can make the downtime minimal. Maybe we need to change the dependency to version 4 and build with the stable version like firefly and dumpling. Then If it work normally, we can try to use the apt/yum upgrade. In brief, I will test dumpling and firefly with version 4 first. Thanks vicente -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
