On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:28:43AM +0530, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/12/2016 12:26 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 06:20:22PM +0530, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > >>> > >>> Gluster should have some provision to take statedump of gfapi > >>> applications. > >>> > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169302 > >> > >> > >> A part of this feature should be to find out how applications that use > >> libgfapi expect to trigger debugging like this. Doing a statedump from > >> the gluster-cli should not be the main/only option. I agree that it > >> helps developers that work on Gluster, but we can not expect users to > >> trigger statedumps like that. > >> > >> I think there would be a huge benefit in having an option to communicate > >> with libgfapi through some minimal form of local IPC. It will allow > >> doing statedumps, and maybe even set/get configuration options for > >> applications that do not offer these in their usage (yet). > >> > >> The communication should be as simple and stable as possible. This could > >> be the only working interface towards getting something done inside > >> gfapi (worst case scenario). There is no need to have this a full > >> featured interface, possibly a named pipe (fifo) where libgfapi is the > >> reader is sufficient. A simple (text) command written to it can create > >> statedumps and eventually other files on request. > >> > >> Enabling/disabling or even selecting the possibilities for debugging > >> could be confiured through new functions in libgfapi, and even > >> environment variables. > >> > >> What do others think? Would this be useful? > > > > > > Would this be useful, yes. > > > > Would this work in cases like a container deployment, where such debugging > > maybe sought at scale, maybe not. I prefer options here, and also the > > ability to drive this from the storage admin perspective, i.e the > > server/brick end of things, identifying the client/connection against which > > we need the statedump and get that information over. > > > > We were thinking something on the same line. Where statedumps can be > initiated by > glusterd by an admin. The option mentioned by Niels is also helpful > but that means > we should either provide some tool or the application has to do some > amount of changes > to make use of this feature. > > > I guess the answer here is, this should not be the only option, but we > > can/should have other options as you describe above. I have not found a feature page for this, is there one? Because we would really like this in 3.10 to allow applications to integrate better with Gluster, I propose to split the functionality over several changes: 1. ground work and API exposed for applications (and testing) 2. enablement through a simple interface, similar to /proc/sysrq-trigger 3. enablement through gluster-cli command These options should be explained in the feature page, with the plan to provide the three options for 3.10. I'm happy to massage the patch from Poornima [0] and split it in 1 and 3. Additional improvements for 3 might be needed, and we'll have to see who does that work. Point 2 is something I'll take on as well. What do others think about this? Thanks, Niels [0] http://review.gluster.org/9228
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
