<html><body><div style="font-family: lucida console,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Yup - I guess it depends upon what we want it to return.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If the process is a simple "are you alive"... 'ping' works.<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, if we want more info returned - maybe detect is more self-explanatory.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Giuseppe Ragusa" &lt;giuseppe.ragusa@hotmail.com&gt;<br><b>To: </b>"Paul Cuzner" &lt;pcuzner@redhat.com&gt;, "Jay Vyas" &lt;jayunit100@gmail.com&gt;<br><b>Cc: </b>"Gluster Devel" &lt;gluster-devel@nongnu.org&gt;<br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, 7 April, 2014 8:04:07 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>RE: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer command.<br><div><br></div>

<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Well, "peer ping" since we are giving way to imagination... :)<br><div><br></div><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:42:03 -0400<br>From: pcuzner@redhat.com<br>To: jayunit100@gmail.com<br>CC: gluster-devel@nongnu.org<br>Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer command.<br><div><br></div><div style="font-family:lucida console,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:#000000;"><div><br></div><div>Sounds like a great idea.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Although, peer sniff .... Really :)<br></div><div><br></div><div>What about "peer detect"?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="ecxzwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Jay Vyas" &lt;jayunit100@gmail.com&gt;<br><b>To: </b>"Harshavardhana" &lt;harsha@harshavardhana.net&gt;<br><b>Cc: </b>"Paul Cuzner" &lt;pcuzner@redhat.com&gt;, "Gluster Devel" &lt;gluster-devel@nongnu.org&gt;<br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, 4 April, 2014 3:58:32 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer command.<br><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>can i suggest that instead, we&nbsp; keep peer probe as is, and rewrite it to call two subcommands <br></div></div><br></div>- peer sniff<br><div>- peer attach<br><div><br></div></div><div>That way users that want advanced peer sniffing can do so, without breaking backwards compatibility<br></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div><div class="ecxgmail_extra"><br><div><br></div><div class="ecxgmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harshavardhana <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:harsha@harshavardhana.net" target="_blank">harsha@harshavardhana.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">+1 to Paul's idea - it sounds more friendly from Admin point of view -<br> also provides consistency with naming schemes.<br><div class="ecxHOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Paul Cuzner &lt;<a href="mailto:pcuzner@redhat.com" target="_blank">pcuzner@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt;<br> &gt; I like the idea of making the CLI more semantically correct. ie to drop a<br> &gt; node from a cluster we use the term detach, so to add a node it should be<br> &gt; attach.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Would a peer probe then be more of a diagnostic command ?<br> &gt; - ie return whether 24007 is open, perform initial handshake - determine<br> &gt; gluster version and report back to the admin?<br> &gt;<br> &gt; This would mean that you could make intelligent decisions about bringing<br> &gt; nodes into the cluster from the automation platform.<br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt; ________________________________<br> &gt;<br> &gt; From: "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana" &lt;<a href="mailto:nsathyan@redhat.com" target="_blank">nsathyan@redhat.com</a>&gt;<br> &gt; To: "James" &lt;<a href="mailto:purpleidea@gmail.com" target="_blank">purpleidea@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br> &gt; Cc: <a href="mailto:gluster-devel@nongnu.org" target="_blank">gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br> &gt; Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2014 6:01:42 PM<br> &gt; Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer<br> &gt; command.<br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt; On 04/01/2014 08:23 AM, James wrote:<br> &gt;<br> &gt; On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana<br> &gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:nsathyan@redhat.com" target="_blank">nsathyan@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt;<br> &gt; In the current design, gluster peer probe does the job of both probing the<br> &gt; server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is added to trusted<br> &gt; pool, it can be detached usingpeer detach command.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Wondering if it makes sense to bring in gluster peer attach command to add<br> &gt; the server to trusted pool. The peer probe command will only prove the<br> &gt; server mentioned and tells if it is reachable. It can also be enhanced to do<br> &gt; some diagnostics such as probing specific ports.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Do I understand correctly:<br> &gt;<br> &gt; gluster peer attach would attach the probing server into the pool it<br> &gt; is probing, correct?<br> &gt; If so, and if it is already a member of a pool, could you join two<br> &gt; different pools together?<br> &gt; I don't know what the gluster internals implications are, but as long<br> &gt; as I understand this correctly, then I think it would benefit the<br> &gt; management side of glusterfs.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; It would certainly make peering more decentralized, as long as double<br> &gt; peering or running a simultaneous peer attach and peer probe don't<br> &gt; cause issues. This last point is very important :)<br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Cheers,<br> &gt; James<br> &gt;<br> &gt; The "gluster peer attach" should work the same way as existing "gluster peer<br> &gt; probe". The new "gluster peer probe" shall only probe the peer and not add<br> &gt; it to the trusted pool. &nbsp;When we give peer detach option, I think it would<br> &gt; be natural to expect a peer attach command.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Thanks<br> &gt; Naga<br> &gt;<br> &gt; _______________________________________________<br> &gt; Gluster-devel mailing list<br> &gt; <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@nongnu.org" target="_blank">Gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br> &gt; <a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt; _______________________________________________<br> &gt; Gluster-devel mailing list<br> &gt; <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@nongnu.org" target="_blank">Gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br> &gt; <a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br> &gt;<br> <br> <br> <br></div></div><span class="ecxHOEnZb"><span style="color:#888888;">--<br> Religious confuse piety with mere ritual, the virtuous confuse<br> regulation with outcomes<br> </span></span><div class="ecxHOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br> _______________________________________________<br> Gluster-devel mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@nongnu.org" target="_blank">Gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br> <a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jay Vyas<br><a href="http://jayunit100.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://jayunit100.blogspot.com</a><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</div>                                               </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div></body></html>