Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 23:52:12 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Jordan Hubbard <jordanhubbard@icloud.com> Cc: Rakshith Venkatesh <vrock28@gmail.com>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CEPH + FreeBSD Message-ID: <5664BC1C.6060207@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <88732E11-8570-4D02-9374-3F1419EABC6F@icloud.com> References: <CANw0z%2BVhYCPNWrjByXLf8yO9wA0sc05_8eVJsM-McjcGNU9KQg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BKW7xQrN60kH37hu2Keja60a0huVjAyP6=SQNSrqus2EUMUMA@mail.gmail.com> <CANw0z%2BXrwK=6y%2BLpoiewc_eLDBYB5UZ5XpU6-YP0-K2FKwSa5w@mail.gmail.com> <A19FDEB5-1DEF-4EBF-8E9E-A1AD4688F1AA@icloud.com> <5661752C.1090200@digiware.nl> <88732E11-8570-4D02-9374-3F1419EABC6F@icloud.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6-12-2015 21:56, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> >> wrote: >> >> Talking to Sage Weill, he said that one of the main things to keep >> FreeBSD-Ceph up and running, is the possibility to actually run >> the automated builds and tests on a FreeBSD system. So that is >> something I/we need to think about. > > I think sufficient cloud resources to run a jenkins CI environment or > something which does the builds on commit triggers and runs > regression tests are the easy part - we run dozens (if not hundreds) > of virtual FreeBSD instances in multiple datacenters to facilitate > our own testing and donating a VM to this effort would be trivial. I have for this more or less the same feeling. Given the number of companies actually running FreeBSD in all shapes and form, would it not be very hard to find either real hardware, let alone getting VMs to run tests.... > I’m more intrigued by the part of the sentence which says “to keep > FreeBSD-Ceph up and running” since it implies that Ceph on FreeBSD is > already working? It was my understanding that we were more at the > part of the story where “sufficiently motivated and skilled > filesystem porting engineers” could not be found, and if that’s > changed then that’s obviously a different ball game! I think I paraphrased Sage words incomplete, and the part I forgot is where you wishful thinking is. I've received several (atleast 3) Git Pull sets that modify the Ceph tree into a shape that it more or less compiles. However these sets do not overlap, and each all fix different parts of the tree. And some of the monitoring is claimed to be able to connect to a Linux based storage system. So no, Ceph is by no way completely ported. Sage response was more to my question whether the Ceph community would accept patches to get more parts in Ceph working. And in essence was the response: Yes, but note that it is only useful if and only if the FreeBSD port is integrated with the automatic testing framework that they are running to make sure that porting efforts are not wasted by bitrot due to little maintenance. And that I think refers back again to you original remark that a first effort to port was started, but then that attempt got orphaned. Which resulted in odd FreeBSD bit and pieces in several parts of the code. I've really started with another perception: I like to make sure that all tests are passed for the parts that at first (easy) portable to FreeBSD. And continue from there. Let alone that I hardy qualify as "skilled filesystem porting engineer", so once I get caught in that corner progress is going to be slow to none. So for the time I've not set my goal to have it all done real soon. Some tests are easy to fix, where the test-scripts want to use 'grep -P', where 'grep -E' would also work. Other fixes require more understanding of what is actually going on under the hood. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5664BC1C.6060207>