From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: [ceph-users] the state of cephfs in giant Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:11:10 +0200 Message-ID: <543E645E.4080405@redhat.com> References: <543CD16C.6060708@m-privacy.de> <543E179E.4070704@m-privacy.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41331 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751533AbaJOMMa (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:12:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <543E179E.4070704@m-privacy.de> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Amon Ott , Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-users@ceph.com On 10/15/2014 08:43 AM, Amon Ott wrote: > Am 14.10.2014 16:23, schrieb Sage Weil: >> 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 :) > If the bugfixes are easily identified in one of your Ceph git branches, > I would even try to backport them myself. Still, I would rather see > someone from the Ceph team with deeper knowledge of the code port them. > > IMHO, it would be good for Ceph to have stable support in at least the > latest longterm kernel. No need for new features, but bugfixes should be > there. > > Amon Ott Long term support and aggressive, tedious backports are what you go to distro vendors for normally - I don't think that it is generally a good practice to continually backport anything to stable series kernels that is not a bugfix/security issue (or else, the stable branches rapidly just a stale version of the upstream tip :)). Not meant as a commercial for RH, other vendors also do this kind of thing of course... Regards, Ric