conditions for removing experimental feature marks

conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Miyamae, Takeshi]

Dear Loic,

Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable and
the way to restrict the feature is proper.

By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for removing
experimental feature marks in the future?
Are additional thorough tests required?

Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae

Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]

Hi,

On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable and
> the way to restrict the feature is proper.
> 
> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for removing
> experimental feature marks in the future?
> Are additional thorough tests required?

The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code plugin
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades for shec plugins

It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.

Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 

Cheers

> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Miyamae, Takeshi]

Dear Loic,

I really apologize that our reply is too late.
Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate hope, we should
have started any actions for that earlier.

By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 for SHEC
if our target is Hammer.
Is my understanding correct ?

> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the
> community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster
> (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?

Thank you for your proposal.
It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !

Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae

-----Original Message-----
From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

Hi,

On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
> 
> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for removing 
> experimental feature marks in the future?
> Are additional thorough tests required?

The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code plugin
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades for shec plugins

It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.

Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 

Cheers

> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 

--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3619 bytes --]

Hi !

On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate hope, we should
> have started any actions for that earlier.

No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)

> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 for SHEC
> if our target is Hammer.
> Is my understanding correct ?

What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 

>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the
>> community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster
>> (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
> 
> Thank you for your proposal.
> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !

Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 

In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>
>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for removing 
>> experimental feature marks in the future?
>> Are additional thorough tests required?
> 
> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
> 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code plugin
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades for shec plugins
> 
> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
> 
> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
> 
> Cheers
> 
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�)޺{.n�+���z�]z���{ay�\x1dʇڙ�,j\a��f���h���z�\x1e�w���\f���j:+v���w�j�m����\a����zZ+�����ݢj"��!tml=
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Miyamae, Takeshi]

Dear Loic,

We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent patches
including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.

erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083

Could you check the above pull request, please ?
Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for some other
document files.

Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae

-----Original Message-----
From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

Hi !

On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.

No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)

> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 for 
> SHEC if our target is Hammer.
> Is my understanding correct ?

What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 

>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
> 
> Thank you for your proposal.
> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !

Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 

In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>
>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>> Are additional thorough tests required?
> 
> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
> 
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
> plugin
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
> for shec plugins
> 
> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
> 
> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
> 
> Cheers
> 
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
   j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
> 

--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5072 bytes --]

Hi,

On 19/03/2015 03:20, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent patches
> including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.

I'd be happy to help, do you have specific questions ?

> erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083

I think we need to split this pull request in three pull requests: 

* the performance optimization can go to master (and backported later to hammer for the next point release)
* the bug fix should be against hammer and be backported later to hammer
* the coding style cleanup should be against master and preferably after any change that you'd like to backport to hammer because it makes it a little more difficult to backport code

> Could you check the above pull request, please ?
> Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for some other
> document files.

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi !
> 
> On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
>> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
>> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.
> 
> No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)
> 
>> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 for 
>> SHEC if our target is Hammer.
>> Is my understanding correct ?
> 
> What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 
> 
>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
>>
>> Thank you for your proposal.
>> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !
> 
> Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 
> 
> In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>> Dear Loic,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>>
>>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>>> Are additional thorough tests required?
>>
>> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
>>
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
>> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
>> plugin
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
>> for shec plugins
>>
>> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
>>
>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
>> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
>    j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5314 bytes --]



On 19/03/2015 08:15, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 19/03/2015 03:20, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent patches
>> including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.
> 
> I'd be happy to help, do you have specific questions ?
> 
>> erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083
> 
> I think we need to split this pull request in three pull requests: 
> 
> * the performance optimization can go to master (and backported later to hammer for the next point release)
> * the bug fix should be against hammer and be backported later to hammer

Sorry, I meant to write :

* the bug fix should be against hammer

> * the coding style cleanup should be against master and preferably after any change that you'd like to backport to hammer because it makes it a little more difficult to backport code
> 
>> Could you check the above pull request, please ?
>> Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for some other
>> document files.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>
>> Hi !
>>
>> On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>> Dear Loic,
>>>
>>> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
>>> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
>>> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.
>>
>> No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)
>>
>>> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 for 
>>> SHEC if our target is Hammer.
>>> Is my understanding correct ?
>>
>> What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 
>>
>>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>>>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>>>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your proposal.
>>> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !
>>
>> Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 
>>
>> In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
>>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
>>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>>> Dear Loic,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>>>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>>>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>>>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>>>> Are additional thorough tests required?
>>>
>>> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
>>>
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
>>> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
>>> plugin
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
>>> for shec plugins
>>>
>>> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
>>>
>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>
>>> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
>>    j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Miyamae, Takeshi]

Dear Loic,

Thank you for your reply, and I mostly understand what you meant about commit policy.
By the way, may I ask a question about the hammer releases ?
Are these two releases,
1. "We are very close to the release" you commented in pull request #4083
and
2. "backported later to hammer for the next point release" you mentioned below,
different ?

Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae

-----Original Message-----
From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:16 PM
To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

Hi,

On 19/03/2015 03:20, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent 
> patches including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.

I'd be happy to help, do you have specific questions ?

> erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083

I think we need to split this pull request in three pull requests: 

* the performance optimization can go to master (and backported later to hammer for the next point release)
* the bug fix should be against hammer and be backported later to hammer
* the coding style cleanup should be against master and preferably after any change that you'd like to backport to hammer because it makes it a little more difficult to backport code

> Could you check the above pull request, please ?
> Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for 
> some other document files.

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 
> 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi !
> 
> On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
>> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
>> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.
> 
> No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)
> 
>> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 
>> for SHEC if our target is Hammer.
>> Is my understanding correct ?
> 
> What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 
> 
>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
>>
>> Thank you for your proposal.
>> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !
> 
> Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 
> 
> In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>> Dear Loic,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>>
>>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>>> Are additional thorough tests required?
>>
>> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
>>
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
>> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
>> plugin
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
>> for shec plugins
>>
>> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
>>
>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
>> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
>    j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 

--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6898 bytes --]



On 19/03/2015 09:50, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> Thank you for your reply, and I mostly understand what you meant about commit policy.
> By the way, may I ask a question about the hammer releases ?
> Are these two releases,
> 1. "We are very close to the release" you commented in pull request #4083
> and
> 2. "backported later to hammer for the next point release" you mentioned below,
> different ?

Hopefully the following will illustrate what I meant : http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ In a short while the "Hammer" release will be published. In the same way the Firefly was released back in May 2014. You can see that after Firefly was released, "point releases" were published (0.80.1, 0.80.2 etc.) on a regular basis. They include bug fixes and sometime optimizations that make a significant difference for people running the stable release in production. 

I think the performance improvement you proposed is a good candidate to be published in the next Hammer point release.

Please let me know if that's still unclear, I'd be happy to explain. The release process is being documented and it's a good to verify if it actually is understandable ;-)

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:16 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 19/03/2015 03:20, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent 
>> patches including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.
> 
> I'd be happy to help, do you have specific questions ?
> 
>> erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083
> 
> I think we need to split this pull request in three pull requests: 
> 
> * the performance optimization can go to master (and backported later to hammer for the next point release)
> * the bug fix should be against hammer and be backported later to hammer
> * the coding style cleanup should be against master and preferably after any change that you'd like to backport to hammer because it makes it a little more difficult to backport code
> 
>> Could you check the above pull request, please ?
>> Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for 
>> some other document files.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 
>> 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>
>> Hi !
>>
>> On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>> Dear Loic,
>>>
>>> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
>>> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
>>> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.
>>
>> No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)
>>
>>> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 
>>> for SHEC if our target is Hammer.
>>> Is my understanding correct ?
>>
>> What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 
>>
>>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>>>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>>>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your proposal.
>>> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !
>>
>> Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 
>>
>> In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
>>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
>>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>>> Dear Loic,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>>>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>>>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>>>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>>>> Are additional thorough tests required?
>>>
>>> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
>>>
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
>>> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
>>> plugin
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
>>> for shec plugins
>>>
>>> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
>>>
>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>
>>> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
>>    j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

RE: conditions for removing experimental feature marks

[Miyamae, Takeshi]

Dear Loic,

Thank you for your reply.
The timeline chart is really smart, and I understand what you meant perfectly.
We will prepare pull requests against master at first.

Best regards,
Takeshi Miyamae

-----Original Message-----
From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:07 PM
To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks



On 19/03/2015 09:50, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
> Dear Loic,
> 
> Thank you for your reply, and I mostly understand what you meant about commit policy.
> By the way, may I ask a question about the hammer releases ?
> Are these two releases,
> 1. "We are very close to the release" you commented in pull request 
> #4083 and 2. "backported later to hammer for the next point release" 
> you mentioned below, different ?

Hopefully the following will illustrate what I meant : http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ In a short while the "Hammer" release will be published. In the same way the Firefly was released back in May 2014. You can see that after Firefly was released, "point releases" were published (0.80.1, 0.80.2 etc.) on a regular basis. They include bug fixes and sometime optimizations that make a significant difference for people running the stable release in production. 

I think the performance improvement you proposed is a good candidate to be published in the next Hammer point release.

Please let me know if that's still unclear, I'd be happy to explain. The release process is being documented and it's a good to verify if it actually is understandable ;-)

Cheers

> 
> Best regards,
> Takeshi Miyamae
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:16 PM
> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, Yoshihiro/加賀 
> 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 19/03/2015 03:20, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>> Dear Loic,
>>
>> We are struggling with teuthology, but we must commit SHEC's recent 
>> patches including Intel sse4 optimization into Hammer before that.
> 
> I'd be happy to help, do you have specific questions ?
> 
>> erasure code: fix shec performance/coding style issues #4083
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4083
> 
> I think we need to split this pull request in three pull requests: 
> 
> * the performance optimization can go to master (and backported later 
> to hammer for the next point release)
> * the bug fix should be against hammer and be backported later to 
> hammer
> * the coding style cleanup should be against master and preferably 
> after any change that you'd like to backport to hammer because it 
> makes it a little more difficult to backport code
> 
>> Could you check the above pull request, please ?
>> Almost all of the modifications are for SHEC plugin's file except for 
>> some other document files.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:25 PM
>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔; Kaga, 
>> Yoshihiro/加賀
>> 芳宏; Kawaguchi, Shotaro/川口 翔太朗
>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>
>> Hi !
>>
>> On 10/03/2015 11:35, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>> Dear Loic,
>>>
>>> I really apologize that our reply is too late.
>>> Since removing experimental flag from SHEC at v0.94 is our immediate 
>>> hope, we should have started any actions for that earlier.
>>
>> No worries, it's never too late to do good :-)
>>
>>> By the way, you mean we must add just the same workaround as 10887 
>>> for SHEC if our target is Hammer.
>>> Is my understanding correct ?
>>
>> What is needed is integration tests running during a few weeks and showing the plugin behaves well. 
>>
>>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you 
>>>> with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology 
>>>> suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your proposal.
>>> It would be greatly helpful if we were allowed to use it !
>>
>> Could you please connect to irc.oftc.net#sepia ? This is the IRC channel where lab related matters are discussed. We can figure out the details there. 
>>
>> In the meantime you can try teuthology and write a single test quite easily, on your local machine. The tricky part comes where we want to run suites with large number of jobs. You can adapt the instructions from http://dachary.org/?p=2204 to your local environment. All you need really is the ability to run two virtual machines.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Loic Dachary [mailto:loic@dachary.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 6:17 PM
>>> To: Miyamae, Takeshi/宮前 剛; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Shiozawa, Kensuke/塩沢 賢輔; Nakao, Takanori/中尾 鷹詔
>>> Subject: Re: conditions for removing experimental feature marks
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2015 08:37, Miyamae, Takeshi wrote:
>>>> Dear Loic,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your help on the pull request of SHEC last week.
>>>> We believe that marking experimental feature on SHEC was inevitable 
>>>> and the way to restrict the feature is proper.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, could you let us know what are the conditions for 
>>>> removing experimental feature marks in the future?
>>>> Are additional thorough tests required?
>>>
>>> The next step is to run integration tests with the shec plugin. The integration tests have shown that the shec plugin does not disrupt anything. Now we should check if it works properly under stress and upgrades. I created two tickets for that purpose:
>>>
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10886 : integration / theuthology 
>>> integration / theuthology thrasher tests for the shec erasure code 
>>> plugin
>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10887 : erasure-code: allow upgrades 
>>> for shec plugins
>>>
>>> It would be fantastic if you could work on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7291 : it would make the integration of new erasure code plugins easier. I realize that it is infrastructure work not directly of interest to the shec plugin implementation.
>>>
>>> Running teuthology locally is non trivial, maybe we can provide you with access to the community lab so that you can run teuthology suites against the existing teuthology cluster (i.e. http://pulpito.ceph.com/). Would you like me to ask ? 
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Takeshi Miyamae
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>
>>> N     r  y   b X  ǧv ^ )޺{.n +   z ]z   {ay \x1dʇڙ ,j   f   h   z \x1e w   
>>    j:+v   w j m         zZ+     ݢj"  !tml=
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 

--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre