Re: [Ceph-maintainers] Bug#791445: : Bug#791445: ceph: uses bundled "libjerasure" library again
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 09/07/15 22:27, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> One of the reasons why I like standalone library is that it can
>> run its own
>>> tests as well -- a something rarely seen in bundled (statically
>>> linked) libraries. Unfortunately at the moment "libjerasure"
>>> package do not run any tests... :(
> There's no question asked here. Embedding a library which is at the
> same time available standalone is a RC bug (severity: serious,
> because of a strong policy violation) which shall be fixed asap (so
> the severity of the bug is correct).
Actually I don't think this is a RC bug - policy says 'should' not 'must
'.
I agree that having a single libjerasure etc... is preferably, but at
the same time, the way the build works (multiple, cpu optimized
plugins including jerasure and gf-complete) in Ceph and how it *does*
do runtime detection of CPU features means that if we switch now to
using libjerasure, we cripple Ceph performance on any reasonably
specified server for users who want to use erasure coding.
I'd actually feel compelled to raise an RC bug against Ceph being
fundamentally broken in this area if this where the case.
Switch to libjerasure/gf-complete? - yes - when? when its possible
todo the correct runtime determination of CPU features in these
codebases, and we're able to make Ceph build and use this effectively.
So not yet...
- --
James Page
Ubuntu and Debian Developer
james.page@ubuntu.com
jamespage@debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=1/Bp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: