should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

Hi Sage,

The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 

Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?

Cheers

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1053 bytes --]

The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
tests yet?

The only other one I'm worried about is

6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup

Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
who upgrade too?

sage


On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:

> Hi Sage,
> 
> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
> 
> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- 
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[David Zafman]

In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the 
ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it 
passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:

bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op 
list-pgs

David


On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
> tests yet?
>
> The only other one I'm worried about is
>
> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>
> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
> who upgrade too?
>
> sage
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>
>> Hi Sage,
>>
>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>>
>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -- 
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>

--
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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3427 bytes --]



On 22/04/2015 06:25, David Zafman wrote:
> 
> All the changes for testing are in ceph-qa-suite firefly branch.
> 
> After updating from the git repo, the firefly branch doesn't include these 2 commits.   Was there an issue with this change?

I'm not monitoring the nightlies close enough to be sure it did not show. I'll ask Yuri if he remembers anything.

Cheers

> 
> David
> 
> commit 71624947a338dabb6ed71d94e2e003bf984074cc
> Merge: 3da69ba 35ee8e0
> Author: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
> Date:   Fri Apr 3 10:47:42 2015 +0200
> 
>     Merge pull request #394 from dzafman/wip-11139-firefly
> 
>     ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
> 
> commit 35ee8e0d4e1e8cac61ff9f5d8d644f93de4cdf60
> Author: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Mar 20 19:56:55 2015 -0700
> 
>     ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
> 
>     Fixes: #11139
> 
>     Signed-off-by: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>     (cherry picked from commit 6c5300552d00232d6ecb2c1aa641d515c9d8cd34)
> 
> David
> 
> On 4/21/15 7:39 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so ceoh_objectstrore_tool is being tested in firefly as part of the current firefly ceph-qa-suite branch?
>> -Sam
>>
>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>
>> *From:* David Zafman
>> *Sent:* Apr 21, 2015 10:16 PM
>> *To:* Sage Weil;Loic Dachary
>> *Cc:* Ceph Development;Shu, Xinxin;sjust@redhat.com
>> *Subject:* Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the
>> ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it
>> passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:
>>
>> bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op
>> list-pgs
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
>> > release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
>> > tests yet?
>> >
>> > The only other one I'm worried about is
>> >
>> > 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>> >
>> > Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
>> > who upgrade too?
>> >
>> > sage
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Sage,
>> >>
>> >> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>> >>
>> >> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>> >>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3419 bytes --]

Hi David,

These changes have been merged in ceph-qa-suite for about two weeks now, did you notice problems ?

Cheers

On 22/04/2015 06:25, David Zafman wrote:
> 
> All the changes for testing are in ceph-qa-suite firefly branch.
> 
> After updating from the git repo, the firefly branch doesn't include these 2 commits.   Was there an issue with this change?
> 
> David
> 
> commit 71624947a338dabb6ed71d94e2e003bf984074cc
> Merge: 3da69ba 35ee8e0
> Author: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
> Date:   Fri Apr 3 10:47:42 2015 +0200
> 
>     Merge pull request #394 from dzafman/wip-11139-firefly
> 
>     ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
> 
> commit 35ee8e0d4e1e8cac61ff9f5d8d644f93de4cdf60
> Author: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Mar 20 19:56:55 2015 -0700
> 
>     ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
> 
>     Fixes: #11139
> 
>     Signed-off-by: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>     (cherry picked from commit 6c5300552d00232d6ecb2c1aa641d515c9d8cd34)
> 
> David
> 
> On 4/21/15 7:39 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so ceoh_objectstrore_tool is being tested in firefly as part of the current firefly ceph-qa-suite branch?
>> -Sam
>>
>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>
>> *From:* David Zafman
>> *Sent:* Apr 21, 2015 10:16 PM
>> *To:* Sage Weil;Loic Dachary
>> *Cc:* Ceph Development;Shu, Xinxin;sjust@redhat.com
>> *Subject:* Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the
>> ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it
>> passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:
>>
>> bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op
>> list-pgs
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
>> > release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
>> > tests yet?
>> >
>> > The only other one I'm worried about is
>> >
>> > 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>> >
>> > Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
>> > who upgrade too?
>> >
>> > sage
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Sage,
>> >>
>> >> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>> >>
>> >> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>> >>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[David Zafman]

The only issue with not having wip-11139-firefly merged is getting false 
test failures.  So I can't see how this would impact the point release.

David


On 5/5/15 2:17 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> These changes have been merged in ceph-qa-suite for about two weeks now, did you notice problems ?
>
> Cheers
>
> On 22/04/2015 06:25, David Zafman wrote:
>> All the changes for testing are in ceph-qa-suite firefly branch.
>>
>> After updating from the git repo, the firefly branch doesn't include these 2 commits.   Was there an issue with this change?
>>
>> David
>>
>> commit 71624947a338dabb6ed71d94e2e003bf984074cc
>> Merge: 3da69ba 35ee8e0
>> Author: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
>> Date:   Fri Apr 3 10:47:42 2015 +0200
>>
>>      Merge pull request #394 from dzafman/wip-11139-firefly
>>
>>      ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>
>>      Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
>>
>> commit 35ee8e0d4e1e8cac61ff9f5d8d644f93de4cdf60
>> Author: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>> Date:   Fri Mar 20 19:56:55 2015 -0700
>>
>>      ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>
>>      Fixes: #11139
>>
>>      Signed-off-by: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>>      (cherry picked from commit 6c5300552d00232d6ecb2c1aa641d515c9d8cd34)
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 4/21/15 7:39 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>>> Ok, so ceoh_objectstrore_tool is being tested in firefly as part of the current firefly ceph-qa-suite branch?
>>> -Sam
>>>
>>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>>
>>> *From:* David Zafman
>>> *Sent:* Apr 21, 2015 10:16 PM
>>> *To:* Sage Weil;Loic Dachary
>>> *Cc:* Ceph Development;Shu, Xinxin;sjust@redhat.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the
>>> ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it
>>> passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:
>>>
>>> bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op
>>> list-pgs
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
>>>> tests yet?
>>>>
>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>>
>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>>
>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
>>>> who upgrade too?
>>>>
>>>> sage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>>
>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>>
>>>

--
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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4096 bytes --]



On 05/05/2015 20:58, David Zafman wrote:
> 
> The only issue with not having wip-11139-firefly merged is getting false test failures.  So I can't see how this would impact the point release.
> 

wip-11139-firefly is an hypothetical branch, right ?

> David
> 
> 
> On 5/5/15 2:17 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> These changes have been merged in ceph-qa-suite for about two weeks now, did you notice problems ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On 22/04/2015 06:25, David Zafman wrote:
>>> All the changes for testing are in ceph-qa-suite firefly branch.
>>>
>>> After updating from the git repo, the firefly branch doesn't include these 2 commits.   Was there an issue with this change?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> commit 71624947a338dabb6ed71d94e2e003bf984074cc
>>> Merge: 3da69ba 35ee8e0
>>> Author: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
>>> Date:   Fri Apr 3 10:47:42 2015 +0200
>>>
>>>      Merge pull request #394 from dzafman/wip-11139-firefly
>>>
>>>      ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>>
>>>      Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> commit 35ee8e0d4e1e8cac61ff9f5d8d644f93de4cdf60
>>> Author: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>>> Date:   Fri Mar 20 19:56:55 2015 -0700
>>>
>>>      ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>>
>>>      Fixes: #11139
>>>
>>>      Signed-off-by: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>>>      (cherry picked from commit 6c5300552d00232d6ecb2c1aa641d515c9d8cd34)
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 4/21/15 7:39 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>>>> Ok, so ceoh_objectstrore_tool is being tested in firefly as part of the current firefly ceph-qa-suite branch?
>>>> -Sam
>>>>
>>>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* David Zafman
>>>> *Sent:* Apr 21, 2015 10:16 PM
>>>> *To:* Sage Weil;Loic Dachary
>>>> *Cc:* Ceph Development;Shu, Xinxin;sjust@redhat.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the
>>>> ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it
>>>> passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:
>>>>
>>>> bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op
>>>> list-pgs
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
>>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
>>>>> tests yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>>>
>>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
>>>>> who upgrade too?
>>>>>
>>>>> sage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> -- 
> 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

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[David Zafman]

Yes, that branch has been deleted.  I resurrected the name in order to 
create and merge pull request #419 after pull request #394 merge was 
clobbered somehow.

David

On 5/5/15 12:04 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>
> On 05/05/2015 20:58, David Zafman wrote:
>> The only issue with not having wip-11139-firefly merged is getting false test failures.  So I can't see how this would impact the point release.
>>
> wip-11139-firefly is an hypothetical branch, right ?
>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 5/5/15 2:17 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> These changes have been merged in ceph-qa-suite for about two weeks now, did you notice problems ?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On 22/04/2015 06:25, David Zafman wrote:
>>>> All the changes for testing are in ceph-qa-suite firefly branch.
>>>>
>>>> After updating from the git repo, the firefly branch doesn't include these 2 commits.   Was there an issue with this change?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> commit 71624947a338dabb6ed71d94e2e003bf984074cc
>>>> Merge: 3da69ba 35ee8e0
>>>> Author: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
>>>> Date:   Fri Apr 3 10:47:42 2015 +0200
>>>>
>>>>       Merge pull request #394 from dzafman/wip-11139-firefly
>>>>
>>>>       ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>>>
>>>>       Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> commit 35ee8e0d4e1e8cac61ff9f5d8d644f93de4cdf60
>>>> Author: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>>>> Date:   Fri Mar 20 19:56:55 2015 -0700
>>>>
>>>>       ceph_manager: Check for exit status 11 from ceph-objectstore-tool import
>>>>
>>>>       Fixes: #11139
>>>>
>>>>       Signed-off-by: David Zafman <dzafman@redhat.com>
>>>>       (cherry picked from commit 6c5300552d00232d6ecb2c1aa641d515c9d8cd34)
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/15 7:39 PM, Samuel Just wrote:
>>>>> Ok, so ceoh_objectstrore_tool is being tested in firefly as part of the current firefly ceph-qa-suite branch?
>>>>> -Sam
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* David Zafman
>>>>> *Sent:* Apr 21, 2015 10:16 PM
>>>>> *To:* Sage Weil;Loic Dachary
>>>>> *Cc:* Ceph Development;Shu, Xinxin;sjust@redhat.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In early march I ran rados:thrash on the firefly backport of the
>>>>> ceph-objectstore-tool changes (wip-cot-firefly).  We considered it
>>>>> passed, even though an obscure segfault was seen:
>>>>>
>>>>> bug #11141: Segmentation Violation: ceph-objectstore-tool doing --op
>>>>> list-pgs
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/15 8:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a
>>>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing
>>>>>> tests yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks
>>>>>> who upgrade too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sage
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> -- 
>> 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

--
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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

Hi Sage,

On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
> tests yet?
> 
> The only other one I'm worried about is
> 
> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
> 
> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
> who upgrade too?

A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.

Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

Cheers

> 
> sage
> 
> 
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sage,
>>
>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
>>
>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -- 
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2035 bytes --]

On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> 
> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
> > The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
> > release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
> > tests yet?
> > 
> > The only other one I'm worried about is
> > 
> > 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
> > 
> > Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
> > who upgrade too?
> 
> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.
> 
> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption.  
I'm guessing we want to include that?

sage

> 
> Cheers
> 
> > 
> > sage
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Sage,
> >>
> >> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
> >>
> >> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> >>
> 
> -- 
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2324 bytes --]



On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Hi Sage,
>>
>> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
>>> tests yet?
>>>
>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>
>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>
>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
>>> who upgrade too?
>>
>> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.
>>
>> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
> 
> As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption.  
> I'm guessing we want to include that?

Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports.

Cheers

> 
> sage
> 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> sage
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>
>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
>>>>
>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2972 bytes --]

Hi Sage,

The following are now in the firefly branch. 

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4697 which includes fixes for http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap  

Do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? If yes the branch will be handed over to QE for further testing.

Cheers

On 15/05/2015 22:19, Loic Dachary wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>> Hi Sage,
>>>
>>> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
>>>> tests yet?
>>>>
>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>>
>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>>
>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
>>>> who upgrade too?
>>>
>>> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.
>>>
>>> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>
>> As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption.  
>> I'm guessing we want to include that?
> 
> Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>>
>> sage
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>>
>>>> sage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>>
>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3103 bytes --]

Ping ?

On 18/05/2015 14:47, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> 
> The following are now in the firefly branch. 
> 
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4697 which includes fixes for http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap  
> 
> Do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? If yes the branch will be handed over to QE for further testing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 15/05/2015 22:19, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>
>>>> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
>>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
>>>>> tests yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
>>>>>
>>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
>>>>> who upgrade too?
>>>>
>>>> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.
>>>>
>>>> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
>>>
>>> As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption.  
>>> I'm guessing we want to include that?
>>
>> Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> sage
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sage,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3238 bytes --]

Let's do it!

On Fri, 22 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:

> Ping ?
> 
> On 18/05/2015 14:47, Loic Dachary wrote:
> > Hi Sage,
> > 
> > The following are now in the firefly branch. 
> > 
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4697 which includes fixes for http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap  
> > 
> > Do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? If yes the branch will be handed over to QE for further testing.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > On 15/05/2015 22:19, Loic Dachary wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> >>>> Hi Sage,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
> >>>>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
> >>>>> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
> >>>>> tests yet?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only other one I'm worried about is
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
> >>>>> who upgrade too?
> >>>>
> >>>> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.
> >>>>
> >>>> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?
> >>>
> >>> As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption.  
> >>> I'm guessing we want to include that?
> >>
> >> Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>>
> >>> sage
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sage
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Sage,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> >>>>
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 

Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1372 bytes --]

Hi,

Unless I'm mistaken it looks like

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap

deserves to be in the next release. With this one, do you think v0.80.10 should be published ? There was concerns about ceph_objectstore_tools and thrashing but my understanding is that the nightlies ran enough tests in the past two weeks to clear that.

If there is not enough incentive to publish v0.80.10 at the moment we can proceed with another batch of backports (about 10 of them pending) and test them.

Cheers

On 21/04/2015 12:12, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> 
> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
> 
> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ?
> 
> Cheers
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


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