On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But this will require a two hop upgrade. Is that normal/acceptable?
On 06/12/2014 11:16 PM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/12/2014 08:19 PM, Justin Clift wrote:But the client side patch is needed only if Avati's server (posix) fix is present. And that is present only in 3.5 and not 3.4 .
On 12/06/2014, at 2:22 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
<snip>
But we will still hit the problem when rolling upgrade is performed
from 3.4 to 3.5, unless the clients are also upgraded to 3.5
Could we introduce a client side patch into (say) 3.4.5 that helps
with this?
The client can actually be fixed to be compatible with both old and new servers. We can change the errno from ESTALE to ENOENT before doing the GFID mismatch check in client_lookup_cbk.
One hop is always better than two hops. But at least we have a way out. It is not at all unreasonable to have clients be of a minimum version for rolling upgrades to work (upgrade still works no matter what the client versions are if they are doing read-only access).
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
