On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:07 PM John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:26 PM David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Release dates > > RHEL 7.4 - July 2017 > > Luminous 12.2.0 - August 2017 > > CentOS 7.4 - September 2017 > > RHEL 7.5 - April 2018 > > CentOS 7.5 - May 2018 > > Mimic 13.2.0 - June 2018 > > > > In the world of sysadmins it takes time to let new releases/OS's simmer > > before beginning to test them let alone upgrading to them. It is not > > possible to tell all companies that use CentOS that we have to move to a > > new OS upgrade 5 months after it is released. We are still testing if > > CentOS 7.5 works in our infrastructure in general let alone being up and > > running on it. The kernel upgrades alone are a big change now to mention > > the obvious package version changes. We don't even have the OK to install > > it in staging. Once we do, and we have the time to start testing it, > > ...among our other tasks, we can start regression testing our use case in > > staging before thinking about upgrading prod. > > > > That time frame isn't really so bad if everything is working great for > > ceph, but what if we're waiting on 12.2.9 and 13.2.2 for a bugfix that's > > giving us grief? Now we are not only dealing with the bugs, but now we have > > to regression test an OS upgrade, update our package management, and make > > sure our new deployments will have this version... And then we can start > > regression testing the new release that hopefully fixes the bugs we're > > dealing with...
Yeah, David, I hear you =) i just wanted to explorer all options before working on a workaround on Ceph side. > > From the comments on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/35969, I think > Kefu is still proposing to work around this in Ceph's build (i.e. to > fix this so that our packages still work on centOS 7.4). True, that's the plan A prime. =) > > Ideally, distros maintain ABI compatibility such that the packages we > test on one minor version will also work on another -- that hasn't > happened in the 7.4->7.5 transition for gperftools. That's annoying, > but it's also kind of a special case, and we hopefully won't encounter > issues like this particularly frequently within a major release. If > we move away from using 7.4 for the main build/test cycle, that > doesn't mean we wouldn't also be accepting fixes to keep it working on > older releases (although it of course relies on someone noticing > if/when it breaks). > > > What about backporting the API standards to the CentOS 7.4 version of > > gperftools-libs? we was trying to asking the downstream maintainers to update gperftools-libs in latest CentOS. i guess that's why we have 2.6 in CentOS 7.5. =D anyway, no worries, i will fix this issue on Ceph as i proposed in http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/35969 . > > > > I've noticed little package issues like this in the past, but assumed that > > was because most development was done on Ubuntu instead of RHEL. We had to > > set our repos to a newer version of CentOS than we were running or willing > > to upgrade to just for a single package we needed. If y'all are really > > thinking of only supporting/testing the latest dot release of the latest > > major version of RHEL, then you might have just given me the fuel to be > > able to finally convince my company into allowing us to be the first > > application in 9,000 servers to not run CentOS. I've been trying to get > > them to allow it for a while because of the previous package issues, but I > > hadn't put much effort into it because I thought/hoped those problems might > > be behind us... > > > > Do y'all not test ceph on 7.3 right now? This email thread really might be > > enough to get us off of CentOS for Ceph. > > There is a set of permutations in qa/distros, used in > qa/suites/buildpackages/ -- I'm not sure exactly what's run when > though (possibly some only at release time?), perhaps someone more > familiar with exactly what tests are run before a release could chime > in. by looking at the qa/ directory, i found that supported-random-distro% a very popular facet: - master (nautilus in future): https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/distros/supported-random-distro%24 -- centos 7.4, rhel 7.5, ubuntu {18.04, 16.04} - mimic: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/mimic/qa/distros/supported-random-distro%24 -- centos 7.4, rhel 7.5, ubuntu {18.04, 16.04} - luminous: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/luminous/qa/distros/supported -- centos 7.4, , ubuntu {14.04, 16.04} > > John > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018, 5:49 AM John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:48 AM kefu chai <tchai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > hi ceph-{maintainers,users,developers}, > >> > > >> > recently, i ran into an issue[0] which popped up when we build Ceph on > >> > centos 7.5, but test it on centos 7.4. as we know, the gperftools-libs > >> > package provides the tcmalloc allocator shared library, but centos 7.4 > >> > and centos 7.5 ship different version of gperftools-{devel,libs}. the > >> > former ships 2.4, and the latter 2.6.1. > >> > > >> > the crux is that the tcmalloc in gperftools 2.6.1 implements more > >> > standard compliant C++ APIs, which were missing in gperftools 2.4. > >> > that's why we have failures like: > >> > > >> > ceph-osd: symbol lookup error: ceph-osd: undefined symbol: _ZdaPvm > >> > > >> > when testing Ceph on centos 7.4. > >> > > >> > my question is: is it okay to drop the support of centos/rhel 7.4? so > >> > we will solely build and test the supported Ceph releases (luminous, > >> > mimic) on 7.5 ? > >> > >> My preference would be to target the latest minor release (i.e. 7.5) > >> of the major release. We don't test on CentOS 7.1, 7.2 etc, so I > >> don't think we need to give 7.4 any special treatment. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > > >> > -- > >> > [0] http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/35969 > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Regards > >> > Kefu Chai > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ceph-users mailing list > >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- Regards Kefu Chai _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
