----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zhang Huan" <zhanghuan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Raghavendra G" <raghavendra@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "GlusterFS Maintainers" <maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kaushal Madappa" > <kmadappa@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 3:33:09 PM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] Backport for "Add back socket for polling of events > immediately..." > > > > > On 29 May 2017, at 11:16, Raghavendra G < raghavendra@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > Replying to all queries here: > > * Is it a bug or performance enhancement? > Its a performance enhancement. No functionality is broken if this patch is > not taken in. > > * Are there performance numbers to validate the claim? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c9 > > * Are there any existing users who need this enhancement? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c27 > > Though not sure what branch Zhang Huan is on. @Zhang your inputs are needed > here. > > We are currently on 3.8. Thus the performance number is based on 3.8. > If you need more details, please let me know. Thanks Zhang. The question was more on the lines whether you need backport of the fix to 3.8. Can you upgrade to recent releases (say 3.11.x or 3.10.x)? > > > > > > * Do I think this patch _should_ go into any of the released branches? > Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. I am fine with this patch not > making into any of released branches. But, I do think there are users who > are affected with this (Especially EC/Disperse configurations). If they want > to stick to the released branches, pulling into released branches will help > them. @Pranith/Xavi, what are your opinions on this? > > regards, > Raghavendra > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Shyam < srangana@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > > On 05/28/2017 09:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos < ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto: ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx >> wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Shyam wrote: > > Or this one: https://review.gluster.org/15036 < > > https://review.gluster.org/15036 > > > > > This is backported to 3.8/10 and 3.11 and considering the size and impact > > of > > the change, I wanted to be sure that we are going to accept this across all > > 3 releases? > > > > @Du, would like your thoughts on this. > > > > @niels, @kaushal, @talur, as release owners, could you weigh in as well > > please. > > > > I am thinking that we get this into 3.11.1 if there is agreement, and not > > in > > 3.11.0 as we are finalizing the release in 3 days, and this change looks > > big, to get in at this time. > > > Given 3.11 is going to be a new release, I'd recommend to get this fix > in (if we have time). https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17402/ is dependent > on this one. > > It is not a fix Atin, it is a more fundamental change to request processing, > with 2 days to the release, you want me to merge this? > > Is there a *bug* that will surface without this change or is it a performance > enhancement? > > > > > > > > Further the change is actually an enhancement, and provides performance > > benefits, so it is valid as a change itself, but I feel it is too late to > > add to the current 3.11 release. > > Indeed, and mostly we do not merge enhancements that are non-trivial to > stable branches. Each change that we backport introduces the chance on > regressions for users with their unknown (and possibly awkward) > workloads. > > The patch itself looks ok, but it is difficult to predict how the change > affects current deployments. I prefer to be conservative and not have > this merged in 3.8, at least for now. Are there any statistics in how > performance is affected with this change? Having features like this only > in newer versions might also convince users to upgrade sooner, 3.8 will > only be supported until 3.12 (or 4.0) gets released, which is approx. 3 > months from now according to our schedule. > > Niels > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > < http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > > -- > Raghavendra G > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
