Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Backport for "Add back socket for polling of events immediately..."

[Raghavendra G <raghavendra@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+gluster-users

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:46 AM, 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.

* 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@xxxxxxxxxxg>
    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

--

Raghavendra G

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users