Hi Avra,
Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot,
This is the patch set:
http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the discussion from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ...
http://review.gluster.org/15555 Referring to bugID:1377437, Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules.
http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the series for the bug=1377437
http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: Refering to the bug ID,
http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: Refering to the bug ID,
http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: Refering to the bug ID,
http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: Refering to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ...
http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: Refering to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ...
http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: Refering to the bug ID, - Minor header file ...
Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into plugins. Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of them are minors, except a couple of ones which does the real work. Others are minors. Followed this method since, it would be easy for a review (accept/reject). Let me know if there is something off the methods followed with gluster devel. Thanks
Sriram
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
Hi Sriram,I have created a bug for this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437). The plan is that for the first patch as mentioned below, let's not meddle with the zfs code at all. What we are looking at is segregating the lvm based code as is today, from the management infrastructure (which is addressed in your patch), and creating a table based pluggable infra(refer to gd_svc_cli_actors[] in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd-handler.c and other similar tables in gluster code base to get a understanding of what I am conveying), which can be used to call this code and still achieve the same results as we do today.Once this code is merged, we can use the same infra to start pushing in the zfs code (rest of your current patch). Please let me know if you have further queries regarding this. Thanks.Regards,AvraOn 09/19/2016 07:52 PM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Avra,Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one?SriramOn Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 11:37 AM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Thanks Avra,I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while.SriramOn Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the commits in the github repo. I finished going through the first commit, where you create a plugin structure and move code. Following is the commit link:FIrst of all, the overall approach of using plugins, and maintaining plugins that is used in the patch is in sync with what we had discussed. There are some gaps though, like in the zfs functions the snap brick is mounted without updating labels, and in restore you perform a zfs rollback, which significantly changes the behavior between how a lvm based snapshot and a zfs based snapshot.But before we get into these details, I would request you to kindly send this particular patch to the gluster master branch, as that is how we formally review patches, and I would say this particular patch in itself is ready for a formal review. Once we straighten out the quirks in this patch, we can significantly start moving the other dependent patches to master and reviewing them. Thanks.Regards,AvraP.S : Adding gluster-develOn 09/13/2016 01:14 AM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Avra,You'd time to look into the below request?SriramHi Avra,Thank you. Please, let me know your feedback. It would be helpful on continuing from then.SriramOn Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:18 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,Rajesh is on a vacation, and will be available towards the end of next week. He will be sharing his feedback once he is back. Meanwhile I will have a look at the patch and share my feedback with you. But it will take me some time to go through it. Thanks.Regards,AvraHello Rajesh,Sorry to bother. Could you have a look at the below request?SriramHello Rajesh,Sorry for the delayed mail, was on leave. Could you let me know the feedback?SriramOn Fri, Sep 2, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:+ AvraHi Srirram,Sorry, I was on leave therefore could not reply.Added Avra who is also working on the snapshot component for review.Will take a look at your changes today.Thanks & Regards,RajeshOn Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM, <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello Rajesh,Could you've a look at the below request?SriramHi Rajesh,Continuing from the discussion we've had below and suggestions made by you, had created a plugin like structure (A generic plugin model) and added snapshot to be the first plugin implementation. Could you've a look if the approach is fine? I've not raised a official review request yet. Could you give an initial review of the model?Things done,- Created a new folder for glusterd plugins and added snapshot as a plugin. Like this,$ROOT/xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins + | + __ snapshot/src Moved LVM related snapshot implementation toxlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/lvm-snapshot.c - Mostly isolated, glusterd code from snapshot implementation by using logging, error codes and messages from glusterd and libglusterfs.- This way, i though we could get complete isolation of snapshot plugin implementation which avoids most of compiler and linking dependency issues.- Created a library of the above like libgsnapshot.so and linking it with glusterd.so to get this working.- The complete isolation also makes us to avoid reverse dependency like some api's inside plugin/snapshot being dependent on glusterd.soTODO's :- Need to create glusterd_snapshot_ops structure which would be used to register snapshot related API's with glusterd.so.- Add command line snapshot plugin option, so that it picks up on compilation.- If any missed implementation for plugin.- Cleanup and get a review ready branch.Let me know if this looks ok? Or need to any more into the list.SriramOn Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 02:43 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 07/19/2016 11:01 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rjoseph@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:__
Hi Rajesh,
I'd thought about moving the zfs specific implementation to
something like
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/plugins/zfs-specifs-stuffs for the
inital go. Could you let me know if this works or in sync with
what you'd thought about?
Sriram
Hi Sriram,
Sorry, I was not able to send much time on this. I would prefer you
move the code to
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/src/zfs-specifs-stuffs
How about having it under
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/zfs-specifs- stuffs such that
in future if we have to write plugins for other features they can be
segregated?It would be nicer to avoid "specific-stuff" or similar from the naming. We can probably leave it at xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/zfs. The naming would be sufficient to indicate that code is specific to zfs snapshots. I don't think the directory would be named "zfs-specific_stuffs, instead zfs specific source file will come directly under "xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/". I think I should have been more clear, my bad. -Rajesh_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list_______________________________________________Gluster-devel mailing list
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
