From: Christian K. <li...@ne...> - 2008-05-18 16:00:56
|
Hi Miklos et al., I've seen your post in [0] regarding the compile error with the now stable 2.6.25 kernel. Can you elaborate a bit more about the "no reason to use the kernel module from the fuse distribution" part? Or is --enable-kernel-module just not supported yet for 2.6.25? Background story: I'm trying to use glusterfs and they've patched[1] the fuse-2.7.3 version with some glusterfs stuff, not sure about all the details though. However, it worked pretty neat with 2.6.19.1 but due to a needed kernel upgrade I had to recompile the fuse.ko and got the same error Juergen and Vinay were reporting. For the record, this is my attempt to build the fuse CVS tree with --enable-kernel-module: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.25.4/fuse/ Thanks, Christian. [0] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.fuse.devel/6172 [1] http://ftp.zresearch.com/pub/gluster/glusterfs/fuse/ [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.fuse.devel/5964 -- BOFH excuse #147: Party-bug in the Aloha protocol. |
From: Miklos S. <mi...@sz...> - 2008-05-19 10:34:39
|
> I've seen your post in [0] regarding the compile error with the now stable > 2.6.25 kernel. Can you elaborate a bit more about the "no reason to > use the kernel module from the fuse distribution" part? Or is > --enable-kernel-module just not supported yet for 2.6.25? It's not supported, and the plan is to drop support for '--enable-kernel-module' in the future fuse releases completely. > Background story: I'm trying to use glusterfs and they've patched[1] the > fuse-2.7.3 version with some glusterfs stuff, not sure about all the > details though. However, it worked pretty neat with 2.6.19.1 but due to a > needed kernel upgrade I had to recompile the fuse.ko and got the same > error Juergen and Vinay were reporting. Does glusterfs not work with the unpatched module from 2.6.25? If it doesn't then it's really a glusterfs issue (Cc-ing Anand Avati). That patch for fuse really contains just one thing that _might_ be valid: O_DIRECT support. I remember discussing it with them, but I think there was no conclusion about why exactly they need to support O_DIRECT, and how to do it properly. Thanks, Miklos |
From: Anand A. <av...@zr...> - 2008-05-19 10:49:05
|
> Does glusterfs not work with the unpatched module from 2.6.25? If it > doesn't then it's really a glusterfs issue (Cc-ing Anand Avati). > glusterfs patches for fuse are completely optional and glusterfs works with standard fuse. > > That patch for fuse really contains just one thing that _might_ be > valid: O_DIRECT support. I remember discussing it with them, but I > think there was no conclusion about why exactly they need to support > O_DIRECT, and how to do it properly. > O_DIRECT support is one of the things in the patch, the other is to increase the fuse channel size to 1MB, and also to set the stat->st_blksize for the cp command to use bigger block sizes for read/write. We plan to (re)submit the custom changes back to the fuse mainline in a more acceptable form sometime. glu...@no... is a more appropriate place to discuss the gluster patches of fuse than fuse-devel itself. avati |
From: Christian K. <li...@ne...> - 2008-05-19 18:32:45
|
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Anand Avati wrote: > glusterfs patches for fuse are completely optional and glusterfs works with > standard fuse. Indeed, but we figured that this patch is there for a reason and our glusterfs setup was somewhat faster with the patches applied to 2.6.19.1 and that's why I tried to apply them to .25 as well. > O_DIRECT support is one of the things in the patch, the other is to increase > the fuse channel size to 1MB, and also to set the stat->st_blksize for the > cp command to use bigger block sizes for read/write. We plan to (re)submit > the custom changes back to the fuse mainline in a more acceptable form > sometime. So, with FUSE's "--enable-kernel-module" gone, there will be a kernel patch to do the things you've mentioned above (O_DIRECT, increasing the channel size), right? Thanks for replying guys, I really appreciate it. Christian. -- BOFH excuse #206: Police are examining all internet packets in the search for a narco-net-trafficker |
From: Miklos S. <mi...@sz...> - 2008-05-19 11:08:22
|
> > Does glusterfs not work with the unpatched module from 2.6.25? If it > > doesn't then it's really a glusterfs issue (Cc-ing Anand Avati). > > > > glusterfs patches for fuse are completely optional and glusterfs works with > standard fuse. OK, that's good. > the other is to increase > the fuse channel size to 1MB, Hmm, is that really needed? Why? > and also to set the stat->st_blksize for the > cp command to use bigger block sizes for read/write. Since 2.6.24 that can be done by setting st_blksize in the ->getattr() method. > We plan to (re)submit > the custom changes back to the fuse mainline in a more acceptable form > sometime. Yeah that would be nice, but the above issues (O_DIRECT and increasing maximum pages per request) are not as easy to do properly as you do it in the patch. So I'd really first like to hear some good justification for these, and then we can start to think about how to implement them. Thanks, Miklos |