Jim Kinney
2019-Apr-30 12:19 UTC
[Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature
+1! I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan at redhat.com> wrote:>Hi all, > >Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for >nfs-ganesha by gluster using pacemaker and corosync. > >That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA >project "Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed > >much from last two years and current development is in halt state, >hence >planning to restore old HA ganesha solution back > >to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting for >next >gluster release 7. > >I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set of >patches [2] > >Please share your thoughts on the same > >Regards, > >Jiffin > >[1]https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663 ><https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663> > >[2] >https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged)-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect authenticity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190430/bc40d5d6/attachment.html>
Renaud Fortier
2019-Apr-30 13:11 UTC
[Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature
IMO, you should keep storhaug and maintain it. At the beginning, we were with pacemaker and corosync. Then we move to storhaug with the upgrade to gluster 4.1.x. Now you are talking about going back like it was. Maybe it will be better with pacemake and corosync but the important is to have a solution that will be stable and maintained. thanks Renaud De : gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] De la part de Jim Kinney Envoy? : 30 avril 2019 08:20 ? : gluster-users at gluster.org; Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan at redhat.com>; gluster-users at gluster.org; Gluster Devel <gluster-devel at gluster.org>; gluster-maintainers at gluster.org; nfs-ganesha <nfs-ganesha at redhat.com>; devel at lists.nfs-ganesha.org Objet : Re: [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature +1! I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan at redhat.com<mailto:jthottan at redhat.com>> wrote: Hi all, Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for nfs-ganesha by gluster using pacemaker and corosync. That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA project "Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed much from last two years and current development is in halt state, hence planning to restore old HA ganesha solution back to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting for next gluster release 7. I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set of patches [2] Please share your thoughts on the same Regards, Jiffin [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663 [2] https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect authenticity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190430/d83a772b/attachment.html>
Jiffin Tony Thottan
2019-May-03 06:04 UTC
[Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature
On 30/04/19 6:41 PM, Renaud Fortier wrote:> > IMO, you should keep storhaug and maintain it. At the beginning, we > were with pacemaker and corosync. Then we move to storhaug with the > upgrade to gluster 4.1.x. Now you are talking about going back like it > was. Maybe it will be better with pacemake and corosync but the > important is to have a solution that will be stable and maintained. >I agree it is very frustrating, there is no longer development planned for future unless someone pick it and work on for its stabilization and improvement. My plan is just to get back what gluster and nfs-ganesha had before -- Jiffin> thanks > > Renaud > > *De?:*gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org > [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] *De la part de* Jim Kinney > *Envoy??:* 30 avril 2019 08:20 > *??:* gluster-users at gluster.org; Jiffin Tony Thottan > <jthottan at redhat.com>; gluster-users at gluster.org; Gluster Devel > <gluster-devel at gluster.org>; gluster-maintainers at gluster.org; > nfs-ganesha <nfs-ganesha at redhat.com>; devel at lists.nfs-ganesha.org > *Objet?:* Re: [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster > solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature > > +1! > I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use > NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process > to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. > > On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan > <jthottan at redhat.com <mailto:jthottan at redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for > nfs-ganesha by gluster using pacemaker and corosync. > > That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA > project "Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed > > much from last two years and current development is in halt state, > hence planning to restore old HA ganesha solution back > > to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting > for next gluster release 7. > > I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set > of patches [2] > > Please share your thoughts on the same > > Regards, > > Jiffin > > [1]https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663 > <https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663> > > [2] > https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged) > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb > related and reflect authenticity. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190503/e06fb039/attachment.html>