Hi, Now the release cadence has been set, it's time for another discussion :-). During Ceph day NL we had a panel q/a [1]. One of the things that was discussed were backports. Occasionally users will ask for backports of functionality in newer releases to older releases (that are still in support). Ceph is quite a unique project in the sense that new functionality gets backported to older releases. Sometimes even functionality gets changed in the lifetime of a release. I can recall "ceph-volume" change to LVM in the beginning of the Luminous release. While backports can enrich the user experience of a ceph operator, it's not without risks. There have been several issues with "incomplete" backports and or unforeseen circumstances that had the reverse effect: downtime of (part of) ceph services. The ones that come to my mind are: - MDS (cephfs damaged) mimic backport (13.2.2) - RADOS (pg log hard limit) luminous / mimic backport (12.2.8 / 13.2.2) I would like to define a simple rule of when to backport: - Only backport fixes that do not introduce new functionality, but addresses (impaired) functionality already present in the release. Example of, IMHO, a backport that matches the backport criteria was the "bitmap_allocator" fix. It fixed a real problem, not some corner case. Don't get me wrong here, it is important to catch corner cases, but it should not put the majority of clusters at risk. The time and effort that might be saved with this approach can indeed be spend in one of the new focus areas Sage mentioned during his keynote talk at Cephalocon Barcelona: quality. Quality of the backports that are needed, improved testing, especially for upgrades to newer releases. If upgrades are seemless, people are more willing to upgrade, because hey, it just works(tm). Upgrades should be boring. How many clusters (not nautilus ;-)) are running with "bitmap_allocator" or with the pglog_hardlimit enabled? If a new feature is not enabled by default and it's unclear how "stable" it is to use, operators tend to not enable it, defeating the purpose of the backport. Backporting fixes to older releases can be considered a "business opportunity" for the likes of Red Hat, SUSE, Fujitsu, etc. Especially for users that want a system that "keeps on running forever" and never needs "dangerous" updates. This is my view on the matter, please let me know what you think of this. Gr. Stefan P.s. Just to make things clear: this thread is in _no way_ intended to pick on anybody. [1]: https://pad.ceph.com/p/ceph-day-nl-2019-panel -- | BIT BV https://www.bit.nl/ Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / info@xxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |