Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

glusterfs: 3.12.12 -> 4.0.0 #49743

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 11, 2018
Merged

glusterfs: 3.12.12 -> 4.0.0 #49743

merged 1 commit into from Nov 11, 2018

Conversation

nh2
Copy link
Contributor

@nh2 nh2 commented Nov 4, 2018

Motivation for this change

Upgrade to new major release.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

CC @bachp

I have tested this for a long time on my Gluster cluster.

Now I'm moved to ceph, but I still want to upstream the improvements to NixOS.

Note that the 4.0.0 point release is older (in date) than the current 3.12.12 point release. Thus it may not have the same level of security patches.

Note both 4.0.* and 3.* are already EOL according to https://www.gluster.org/release-schedule/, so we have to upgrade further anyway for NixOS 19.03. I hope that this PR, especially the upgrading of the NixOS specific patches, helps with that.

bachp
bachp approved these changes Nov 4, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@bachp bachp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From my point of view we can merge this. I might find some time to have a look at upgrading to version 5 after this.

@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Nov 9, 2018

Note that the 4.0.0 point release is older (in date) than the current 3.12.12 point release. Thus it may not have the same level of security patches.

Why not jump to latest v4.x maintenance release (v4.1.5) then?

@infinisil infinisil merged commit e888a99 into NixOS:master Nov 11, 2018
@nh2
Copy link
Contributor Author

nh2 commented Nov 15, 2018 •
edited

Why not jump to latest v4.x maintenance release (v4.1.5) then?

@c0bw3b Because I haven't tested that. The 4.0 version I have tested extensively, so I feel more confident in submitting that.

Glusterfs is difficult to upgrade in the sense that they call a lot of utilities (especially python and bash) at runtime for specific use cases, so if one doesn't test things in anger, one cannot really be sure that the point release doesn't break things, especially related to packaging.

@nh2 nh2 mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2019
Open
@azazel75
Copy link
Contributor

azazel75 commented Apr 9, 2019

Hi @nh2 can you elaborate more on your last post? I see that now the gluster people released version 6 just few days ago, can you point me to something more specific about those upgrade issues? also the issue you referred to in the changelogs ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509340 ) is marked as closed now

@nh2
Copy link
Contributor Author

nh2 commented Apr 9, 2019

@azazel75 Sure, which parts do you want to know about?

What I was saying in my post is: GlusterFS does not only include some C programs. The servers included will also invoke other utilities, sometimes across multiple machines, with bash and python. They only do that when you use certain features. There are/were paths hardcoded in those external-tool invocations that don't work on NixOS.

For the PR I made, I tried to test as many Gluster features as possible (e.g. geo-replication) to see if I hit any such hardcoded paths. With new Gluster releases, they may have added more features (and thus such paths), which ideally should also be tested.

Hope that helps; don't hesitate to ask more.

@nh2
Copy link
Contributor Author

nh2 commented Apr 9, 2019

Clarifying @azazel75's question on #nixos here for other readers:

Thanks! But to better understand, the version of glusterfs is still 4.0 because later releases had issues on NixOS ? It's so difficult to test new releases?

My answer:

Oh no, I just switched to Ceph, so I haven't been working on GlusterFS in NixOS at all. I just wanted to get that last PR in to not throw away previous work. The question the previous commenter asked was why I don't directly go to a newer version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bachp bachp bachp approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: nixos 8.has: module (update) 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 11-100
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
6 participants
@nh2 @c0bw3b @azazel75 @bachp @infinisil @GrahamcOfBorg