Raghavendra G
2017-May-29 03:27 UTC
[Gluster-users] [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Backport for "Add back socket for polling of events immediately..."
+gluster-users On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Raghavendra G <raghavendra at gluster.com> 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 at redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 05/28/2017 09:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com >>> <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>> 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 at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org> >>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers >>> <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel at gluster.org >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Raghavendra G >-- Raghavendra G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170529/0d19be82/attachment-0001.html>