<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/01/2014 08:23 AM, James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADCaTgrSURfRbcCo7JGxsk9jQr11gcH__-BW9i0OsnqSzFna7w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsathyan@redhat.com"><nsathyan@redhat.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In the current design, gluster peer probe does the job of both probing the
server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is added to trusted
pool, it can be detached usingpeer detach command.
Wondering if it makes sense to bring in gluster peer attach command to add
the server to trusted pool. The peer probe command will only prove the
server mentioned and tells if it is reachable. It can also be enhanced to do
some diagnostics such as probing specific ports.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Do I understand correctly:
gluster peer attach would attach the probing server into the pool it
is probing, correct?
If so, and if it is already a member of a pool, could you join two
different pools together?
I don't know what the gluster internals implications are, but as long
as I understand this correctly, then I think it would benefit the
management side of glusterfs.
It would certainly make peering more decentralized, as long as double
peering or running a simultaneous peer attach and peer probe don't
cause issues. This last point is very important :)
Cheers,
James
</pre>
</blockquote>
The "gluster peer attach" should work the same way as existing
"gluster peer probe". The new "gluster peer probe" shall only probe
the peer and not add it to the trusted pool. When we give <i>peer
detach</i> option, I think it would be natural to expect a <i>peer
attach</i> command.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Naga<br>
</body>
</html>