On 20 January 2015 at 09:43, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When I first looked at the append() function I started working on a branch > that would avoid the need for it entirely. ObjectStore already > operates on a list of Transactions, and IIRC the appending is only needed > for local operations, not for what is sent over the wire. It was > nontrivial because of various annoying reasons (pointer ownership, > lifecycle, etc.) so I didn't get very far. I totally agree with you. Actually I tried to avoid all append at first, but it seems too complex to refact transaction and remove append in a single BP, so I give up and focus on the transaction. > > If this is going to be a significant amount of work to fix with the > current approach it might make sense to bite the bullet and go down that > path..? I want to spend sometime (maybe one or two days) on the current approach first, if it doesn't make sense. I will go down that path. Is that OK? > > sage > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Dong Yuan wrote: > >> If we must keep the order of local_t and op_t, I think the current >> impl of append is not appropriate. >> >> Maybe I must provide something like clone_append to avoid the modify >> of existing data in the op_buffer, so the msg should be happy with the >> new transaction format. >> >> I will try this solution and give a patch as soon as possible. >> >> On 20 January 2015 at 02:44, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > We actually found another problem with this series as well. >> > >> > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10534 >> > >> > Looks like d427ca35404a30e1f428859c3274e030f2f83ef6 reversed the order >> > of localt (which contains the create_collection) and op_t (which >> > contains all of the operations on the object in the temp collection). >> > We need the operations in localt to precede the operations in op_t. >> > How do we do this? >> > -Sam >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Dong Yuan <yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Yes, I am working on it since last week. >> >> >> >> This seems the same problem which I fix in the ReplicatedPG. So I try >> >> to fix it following the same way which I did in the ReplicatedPG, but >> >> it break the make_check test_erasure_code.sh. >> >> >> >> Now I am working on the test case, but unfortunately I am not familiar >> >> with the impl of EC, so it will take me more time. >> >> >> >> On 19 January 2015 at 23:41, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> This has come up a couple times in QA since we merged the fast transaction >> >>> code. Can you take a look? >> >>> >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10517 >> >>> >> >>> Ping me if it will help to get access to the test cluster. Haomai has >> >>> access, and you can get the logs via http (linked from pulpito.ceph.com), >> >>> but it is less convenient. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> sage >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dong Yuan >> >> Email:yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dong Yuan >> Email:yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx >> >> -- Dong Yuan Email:yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
