On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:09 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
(I sent this to a smaller list of folks yesterday, but I think it
probably warrants wider discussion).
Recently Varsha added the necessary infrastructure to bring up
nfs-ganesha via vstart.sh. The current implementation requires that
ganesha already be installed on the box (usually via distro packaging),
but that poses a bit of a problem.
A distro ganesha package will have likely been built vs. a completely
different version of libcephfs and librados. Even if you build right off
of ceph master branch, you won't get the benefit of any recent client
bugfixes when you want to test ganesha. You'd have to build new ganesha
packages, install them, etc.
I think we ought to consider making a nfs-ganesha build an optional part
of a ceph build (maybe enable it with cmake -DNFS_GANESHA=ON or
we tried to shorten the time running the "make check". that's why we
have qa/suites/rados/standalone tests. personally, i don't want to add
tests which cannot be categorized into unit test to "make check" even
if they only take less than 2 minutes to build.
probably we could add a task either performed by jenkins or by
teuthology for building and testing nfs-ganesha?
It doesn't take very long to build it (typically only a minute or two on
my box), and we could disable the parts that ceph doesn't care about
(other FSALs primarily). We could also have vstart just error out when
you run it with NFS=X on a build that didn't have ganesha enabled.
OTOH, the potential downside here is that it'll likely add other build-
time dependencies, and would require some extra cmake or scripting
wizardry. Nothing insurmountable, but it might represent a maintenance
burden going forward, particularly for something that's basically only
going to be used for vstart.
I'm also not sure how we'd do this in practice. I don't think you can do
optional submodules, so we might have to look at other methods of
pulling in the ganesha tree, or just live with it as a submodule that
only gets used when ganesha is enabled.
adding ganesha as a subtree or a submodule does not make sense to me.
i see ganesha as a consumer of libcephfs and librados. in the long
run, if we go this way, the ceph repo will be bloated like a balloon.
not to mention, it's already very big now..
Jeff Layton <jlayton(a)redhat.com>
Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io