On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Amon Ott wrote: > Am 15.10.2014 14:11, schrieb Ric Wheeler: > > On 10/15/2014 08:43 AM, Amon Ott wrote: > >> Am 14.10.2014 16:23, schrieb Sage Weil: > >>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Amon Ott wrote: > >>>> Am 13.10.2014 20:16, schrieb Sage Weil: > >>>>> We've been doing a lot of work on CephFS over the past few months. > >>>>> This > >>>>> is an update on the current state of things as of Giant. > >>>> ... > >>>>> * Either the kernel client (kernel 3.17 or later) or userspace > >>>>> (ceph-fuse > >>>>> or libcephfs) clients are in good working order. > >>>> Thanks for all the work and specially for concentrating on CephFS! We > >>>> have been watching and testing for years by now and really hope to > >>>> change our Clusters to CephFS soon. > >>>> > >>>> For kernel maintenance reasons, we only want to run longterm stable > >>>> kernels. And for performance reasons and because of severe known > >>>> problems we want to avoid Fuse. How good are our chances of a stable > >>>> system with the kernel client in the latest longterm kernel 3.14? Will > >>>> there be further bugfixes or feature backports? > >>> There are important bug fixes missing from 3.14. IIRC, the EC, cache > >>> tiering, and firefly CRUSH changes aren't there yet either (they > >>> landed in > >>> 3.15), and that is not appropriate for a stable series. > >>> > >>> They can be backported, but no commitment yet on that :) > >> If the bugfixes are easily identified in one of your Ceph git branches, > >> I would even try to backport them myself. Still, I would rather see > >> someone from the Ceph team with deeper knowledge of the code port them. > >> > >> IMHO, it would be good for Ceph to have stable support in at least the > >> latest longterm kernel. No need for new features, but bugfixes should be > >> there. > >> > >> Amon Ott > > > > Long term support and aggressive, tedious backports are what you go to > > distro vendors for normally - I don't think that it is generally a good > > practice to continually backport anything to stable series kernels that > > is not a bugfix/security issue (or else, the stable branches rapidly > > just a stale version of the upstream tip :)). > > bugfix/security is exactly what I am looking for. Right; sorry if I was unclear. We make a point of sending bug fixes to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx but haven't been aggressive with cephfs because the code is less stable. There will be catch-up required to get 3.14 in good working order. Definitely hear you that this important, just can't promise when we'll have the time to do it. There's probably a half day's effort to pick out the right patches and make sure they build properly, and then some time to feed it through the test suite. sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |