Bug 1223691 - [RFE] [geo-rep]: With the addition of LAST_SYNCED in status detail, checkpoint can be removed
Summary: [RFE] [geo-rep]: With the addition of LAST_SYNCED in status detail, checkpoin...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Gluster Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: geo-replication
Version: rhgs-3.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Aravinda VK
QA Contact: storage-qa-internal@redhat.com
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1223636
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-05-21 09:04 UTC by Rahul Hinduja
Modified: 2016-01-13 13:34 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-01-13 13:34:31 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rahul Hinduja 2015-05-21 09:04:40 UTC
Description of problem:
=======================

The purpose of checkpoint in status was to track whether the files to the time is synced or not. With the addition of last_synced in the status the usecase of checkpoint is very minimal and can be removed. 

The status detail command is too large to fit in the screen for user to track, we can avoid displaying things which do not make sense any more. 

Checkpoint Completed yes/no is another such thing. It sets the value yes/no based out of "If last_synced > checkpoint time" set yes else set no. 

This is how current status details output is:

[root@georep1 scripts]# gluster volume geo-replication master 10.70.46.154::slave status detail
 
MASTER NODE    MASTER VOL    MASTER BRICK      SLAVE USER    SLAVE                  SLAVE NODE      STATUS     CRAWL STATUS       LAST_SYNCED            ENTRY    DATA    META    FAILURES    CHECKPOINT TIME        CHECKPOINT COMPLETED    CHECKPOINT COMPLETION TIME   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
georep1        master        /rhs/brick1/b1    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.101    Passive    N/A                N/A                    N/A      N/A     N/A     N/A         N/A                    N/A                     N/A                          
georep1        master        /rhs/brick2/b2    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.101    Passive    N/A                N/A                    N/A      N/A     N/A     N/A         N/A                    N/A                     2015-05-21 14:00:57          
georep3        master        /rhs/brick1/b1    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.154    Active     Changelog Crawl    2015-05-21 14:03:50    0        377     0       0           2015-05-21 13:59:24    Yes                     2015-05-21 14:14:10          
georep3        master        /rhs/brick2/b2    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.154    Active     Changelog Crawl    2015-05-21 14:02:02    0        372     0       0           2015-05-21 13:59:24    Yes                     2015-05-21 14:04:37          
georep2        master        /rhs/brick1/b1    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.103    Passive    N/A                N/A                    N/A      N/A     N/A     N/A         N/A                    N/A                     N/A                          
georep2        master        /rhs/brick2/b2    root          10.70.46.154::slave    10.70.46.103    Passive    N/A                N/A                    N/A      N/A     N/A     N/A         N/A                    N/A                     N/A                          
[root@georep1 scripts]# 




Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

glusterfs-3.7.0-2.el6rhs.x86_64

Comment 2 Aravinda VK 2015-05-22 08:14:13 UTC
Since Checkpoints are used in many cases like during Cluster Failover/Failback and Replace brick scenarios. We will plan to move checkpoint as separate command and with multiple checkpoint support. BZ for multiple Checkpoints 889171

Comment 3 Rahul Hinduja 2016-01-13 13:34:31 UTC
As mentioned in comment 2 the checkpoints remains valid in different scenarios. Hyper-convergence use case is based on checkpoints. Closing this request of enhancements.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.