Hi, On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote: > Dear Loic, > > Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week. > We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable and > the way to restrict the feature is proper. > > By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for removing > experimental feature marks in the future? > Are additional thorough tests required? The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code plugin http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades for shec plugins It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation. Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? Cheers > Best regards, > Takeshi Miyamae > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
