[04:23] <nictuku> hi all
[06:21] <keherman> hello!
[06:25] <nictuku> keherman, hi!
[06:26] <keherman> :-)
[04:05] <maswan> fabbione: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LustreInUbuntu <- about half a spec, comments are most welcome
[04:06] <fabbione> maswan: what about finishing it? :)
[04:07] <fabbione> use cases look ok
[04:07] <fabbione> go for the implementation
[04:07] <fabbione> * evaluate current code
[04:07] <fabbione> * merge with ubuntu kernel
[04:07] <fabbione> * make packages for the userland tools
[04:07] <fabbione> * profit...
[04:07] <fabbione> Code
[04:07] <fabbione> * verify that lustre can keep up and work with current ubuntu kernel
[04:08] <fabbione> Data etc...
[04:08] <fabbione> non
[04:08] <fabbione> Outstanding issues?
[04:08] <fabbione> * none are known at the moment
[04:08] <fabbione> something like this would do
[04:08] <maswan> Ok, adding that. Thanks
[04:14] <maswan> Hmm.. Just checked, the next major version of Lustre (release 2007) seem to aim for mainline inclusion. But that's some time away.
[04:15] <maswan> Anyway, might be good to know, if the current patchset is not good for the current Ubuntu kernel.
[04:20] <fabbione> so you could add that to Outstandind issue
[04:20] <fabbione> specially if they plan to change th on-disk format
[04:22] <maswan> on-disk format changes are done with transparent transitions
[04:23] <maswan> so the current version will support the previous (and next, if a format change is planned)
[04:23] <fabbione> hmm ok
[04:23] <fabbione> so what happens if we hit a dapper-like release with lustre.. can we expect a smooth transition in 5 years?
[04:24] <fabbione> or we will have to reinvent the wheel?
[04:25] <maswan> Good question.
[04:27] <maswan> Possibly a cycle-through of intermediate versions might be needed. I don't know.
[04:28] <fabbione> that's something we might have to ask upstream
[04:28] <fabbione> s/we/you
[04:28] <fabbione> you write the spec.. you get to implement it..
[04:34] <fabbione> well most of it.. :)
[04:41] <maswan> just talked to the guy that did the patching for breezy locally here, and it seems to not be that bad. just a few trivial conflicts with that kernel. wonder how it looks for the post-dapper devel kernel? :)
[04:58] <mkrufky> infinity: you around?
[05:14] <infinity> mkrufky: Ish.
[05:18] <mkrufky> hi
[05:19] <mkrufky> infinity: just wondering if you had ever received my email containing the patch for stored procedures support in php-mssql for 5.0.5
[05:19] <mkrufky> the bug is already fixed in 5.1.x  ... but you had asked me to send you this patch anyhow
[05:20] <infinity> mkrufky: Err, I think we had a failure to communicate.  You were asking for fixes to php-sybase, then sent me a patch to enable php-mssql.
[05:20] <infinity> mkrufky: I know how to do the latter, but we're not going to do it.
[05:20] <infinity> mkrufky: A patch that ports the functions you need from mssql into sybase_ct would be much more helpful.
[05:20] <mkrufky> ah!
[05:20] <mkrufky> yes, quite a misunderstanding
[05:21] <mkrufky> php-sybase will never support full mssql stored procedures, as per what i've read on google
[05:21] <mkrufky> so.. i think i wont be touching that with a ten foot pole :-/
[05:21] <mkrufky> you did, however, tell me that you were considering php-mssql for inclusion in POST_dapper
[05:21] <mkrufky> did i misunderstand this also?
[05:27] <infinity> Oh, post-dapper, yes, it'll end up in the php-sybase package (both modules), IF we can't merge the two.
[05:27] <infinity> On the other hand, both wrap the same library, and it seems like it wouldn't be much effort for someone to just port the functions from one to the other.
[05:27] <infinity> I've just spent zero time looking at that.
[05:27] <mkrufky> ah
[05:27] <mkrufky> i bet a lot of users would be happy to know that full mssql functionality could be supported in ubuntu
[05:28] <mkrufky> unfortunately, even though I got it working..... i dont feel comfortable running a production server off of a hack like the patch that i had to send you
[05:28] <mkrufky> so........ i had to convert that machine to FC5
[05:28] <infinity> To be fair, I used to use Debian's php-sybase packages professionally (last job I had before Canonical, where I used MSSQL a lot) and never really felt like I was missing anything.
[05:28] <mkrufky> but i am hoping that by the time i am ready to build the next server, that ubuntu will have a solution
[05:29] <mkrufky> the issue is the stored procedures
[05:29] <mkrufky> in the current src package for php-mssql, stored procedures are completely broken
[05:29] <mkrufky> err... s/current / breezy
[05:31] <infinity> Fair enough.  I'm not going to backport patches to a stable release for source we don't even compile by default, obviously. :)
[05:32] <mkrufky> hehe of course not
[05:32] <mkrufky> and i have not tried the src packages in dapper, but for all i know they might work just fine
[05:43] <mkrufky> infinity: so, im just wondering about this......   i was considering a support license, but as of now we're going to wait some longer......   but here is my problem:
[05:43] <mkrufky> i need the full mssql functionality before i can commit to running ubuntu on our servers....
[05:44] <mkrufky> so, chicken or the egg... which comes first?
[05:44] <mkrufky> support licence will be a catalyst for ubuntu to fix it?
[05:44] <mkrufky> or ubuntu fixing it will lead to my purchase of a support license?
[05:44] <mkrufky> how do these things get handled with other customers?
[05:45] <infinity> TBH, I'm not really positive how customers requiring custom packaging is handled.
[05:46] <infinity> Obviously, I can get the support you need in for edgy, but the changes are fairly invasive to do what I want to do for dapper.
[05:51] <mkrufky> thats no problem
[05:51] <mkrufky> just knowing that it will definately be in the release after dapper is enough for me
[05:51] <mkrufky> i would REALLY prefer using ubuntu on my servers.....
[05:52] <mkrufky> i just feel better about .deb package management as opposed to redhat rpms.... and ubuntu is the best debian-based distro ive ever used
[05:53] <infinity> Well, you'll have your pick, as I intend to make the changes you need for both Edgy and Etch.
[05:53] <infinity> (Which should likely release around the same time)
[05:55] <mkrufky> what is the difference?  this is the first i am hearing of edgy and etch
[05:55] <mkrufky> (i've been slacking with my ubuntu news)
[06:00] <infinity> Edgy Eft == Next Ubuntu release after Dapper.  Etch is the next Debian release after Sarge.
[06:00] <mkrufky> ah!
[06:01] <mkrufky> well, i am leaving a spare partition on this server for testing new OS's ..... when you have things ready, I'd be happy to run some tests for you
[06:01] <mkrufky> to make sure that all works (esp stored procedures) before these get released
[06:02] <infinity> Fair enough.  I should be making the changes in sid within the next month, and those'll trickle into both edgy and etch quickly enough.
[06:02] <mkrufky> great
[06:03] <mkrufky> do u still have my email address ?
[06:03] <mkrufky> (i dont know if you know anybody else able to test mssql stored procedures)
[06:06] <infinity> I can test them myself.  I have an MSSQL Server setup here somewhere to test freetds and php-sybase with.
[06:06] <infinity> But I'm pretty sure I still have your address too.
[06:07] <mkrufky> ok... if you remember, it would be cool if you could email me to let me know when to give it a whirl
[06:07] <mkrufky> you might have two email addresses for me... not sure... the one appropriate for this is my irc nick at silenttype dot com
[06:08] <mkrufky> the other one is the same, at linuxtv dot org.... i think i accidentally used that one when i emailed the patch to u
[06:08] <mkrufky> oops.. sorry wrong
[06:08] <mkrufky> mike at silenttype dot com -- that's it
[06:08] <mkrufky> (sorry for confusion)
[06:09] <mkrufky> ...and thanx for the info