Bug 1262450 - Backport https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5524
Summary: Backport https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5524
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1256507
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Ceph Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: RBD
Version: 1.2.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 1.3.2
Assignee: Josh Durgin
QA Contact: ceph-qe-bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-09-11 17:55 UTC by Tupper Cole
Modified: 2022-02-21 18:20 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-09-11 18:13:17 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Ceph Project Bug Tracker 12638 0 None None None Never
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHCEPH-3359 0 None None None 2022-02-21 18:20:01 UTC

Description Tupper Cole 2015-09-11 17:55:01 UTC
Description of problem:
Poor monitor performance can result in excessively long boot times for OSDs. 

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9987

Patch already tested and backported for community bits.

Comment 2 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-09-11 18:07:25 UTC
(In reply to Tupper Cole from comment #0)
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9987

(9987 is the wrong URL, I presume? Uptream's 9987 is already tracked in bz 1256507)

Comment 3 Kyle Squizzato 2015-09-11 18:13:17 UTC
Ken, 

That's correct looks like this was incorrectly opened.  We can probably close this with CURRENTRELEASE or mark it as a dup.  I'll go ahead and mark it as a dup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1256507 ***

Comment 4 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-09-11 18:37:53 UTC
Well, under external trackers it says "Ceph Project Bug Tracker 12638"... so I'm guessing that Comment #1 was simply a bad copy-and-paste?

The reference to "https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5524" in this bug's Summary also leads me to think that this must be a downstream bug for Redmine 12638, instead of Redmine 9987

Right?

Comment 5 Kyle Squizzato 2015-09-11 20:14:51 UTC
Hi Ken, 

I've been talking to Tupper.  There was a large amount of confusion surrounding a couple support cases for the same customer and what issues we needed backported to fix different issues.  This BZ was opened to backport Redmine 9987 and we didn't realize that bug 1256507 had already been opened to track it.

I've opened a second BZ, bug 1262460 which correctly requests a backport for the issue discussed in Redmine 12638. 

Sorry for the confusion caused.

Comment 6 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-09-11 20:32:50 UTC
Whew. Thanks!


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