From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alphe Salas Subject: Re: [ceph-users] the state of cephfs in giant Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:16:41 -0300 Message-ID: <543DBCE9.2080605@kepler.cl> References: <543CD16C.6060708@m-privacy.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]:61926 "EHLO mail-qa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755519AbaJOAQq (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:16:46 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n8so143532qaq.0 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:16:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , Amon Ott Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-users@ceph.com Hello sage, last time I used CephFS it had a strange behaviour when if used in conjunction with a nfs reshare of the cephfs mount point, I experienced a partial random disapearance of the tree folders. According to people in the mailing list it was a kernel module bug (not using ceph-fuse) do you know if any work has been done recently in that topic? best regards Alphe Salas I.T ingeneer On 10/14/2014 11:23 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Amon Ott wrote: >> Am 13.10.2014 20:16, schrieb Sage Weil: >>> We've been doing a lot of work on CephFS over the past few months. This >>> is an update on the current state of things as of Giant. >> ... >>> * Either the kernel client (kernel 3.17 or later) or userspace (ceph-fuse >>> or libcephfs) clients are in good working order. >> >> Thanks for all the work and specially for concentrating on CephFS! We >> have been watching and testing for years by now and really hope to >> change our Clusters to CephFS soon. >> >> For kernel maintenance reasons, we only want to run longterm stable >> kernels. And for performance reasons and because of severe known >> problems we want to avoid Fuse. How good are our chances of a stable >> system with the kernel client in the latest longterm kernel 3.14? Will >> there be further bugfixes or feature backports? > > There are important bug fixes missing from 3.14. IIRC, the EC, cache > tiering, and firefly CRUSH changes aren't there yet either (they landed in > 3.15), and that is not appropriate for a stable series. > > They can be backported, but no commitment yet on that :) > > sage > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >