Hi Sage, The following are now in the firefly branch. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4697 which includes fixes for http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap Do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? If yes the branch will be handed over to QE for further testing. Cheers On 15/05/2015 22:19, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> Hi Sage, >>> >>> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote: >>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a >>>> release, IMO. David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing >>>> tests yet? >>>> >>>> The only other one I'm worried about is >>>> >>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup >>>> >>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks >>>> who upgrade too? >>> >>> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados. >>> >>> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? >> >> As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption. >> I'm guessing we want to include that? > > Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports. > > Cheers > >> >> sage >> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>>> >>>> sage >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Sage, >>>>> >>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). >>>>> >>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>> > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
