You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by "Claude Warren, Jr via dev" <de...@cassandra.apache.org> on 2023/10/20 14:01:49 UTC
CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
I am looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18775 and
want to ensure that I do not remove too many libraries.
I think that preserving any sigar library where the file name contains the
word "linux" or "macosx" should be acceptable. This will preserve:
libsigar-amd64-linux.so
libsigar-ia64-linux.so
libsigar-ppc-linux.so
libsigar-ppc64-aix-5.so
libsigar-ppc64-linux.so
libsigar-ppc64le-linux.so
libsigar-s390x-linux.so
libsigar-universal-macosx.dylib
libsigar-universal64-macosx.dylib
libsigar-x86-linux.so
and remove:
libsigar-amd64-freebsd-6.so
libsigar-amd64-solaris.so
libsigar-ia64-hpux-11.sl
libsigar-pa-hpux-11.sl
libsigar-ppc-aix-5.so
libsigar-sparc-solaris.so
libsigar-sparc64-solaris.so
libsigar-x86-freebsd-5.so
libsigar-x86-freebsd-6.so
libsigar-x86-solaris.so
resulting in a savings of 3,105,384 bytes out of 6,450,526 from the
/lib/sigar-bin directory, a 48% reduction.
Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by "Claude Warren, Jr via dev" <de...@cassandra.apache.org>.
I closed 18775 as it did not seem reasonable after discussions here. I
have been working on 16565 and have a pull request [1] and an experimental
suite to show the differences. [2]
[1] https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842
[2] https://github.com/Aiven-Labs/compare_oshi_sigar
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:59 PM Josh McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 to drop if we're not using.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, at 6:58 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>
> +1 on removal the whole lib if we are sure we don’t need it. Nothing
> better than some healthy house cleaning
>
> -1 on partial removals
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 17:34, David Capwell <dc...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to drop the whole lib…
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed. -1 on selectively removing any of the libs. But +1 for removing
> the whole thing if it is no longer used.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> On Oct 20, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM, Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>
>
>
> Thanks for bring this to dev@
>
> I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite
> us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some
> examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723),
> PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this
> on the ticket too.
>
> +1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
>
>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by Josh McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
+1 to drop if we're not using.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, at 6:58 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> +1 on removal the whole lib if we are sure we don’t need it. Nothing better than some healthy house cleaning
>
> -1 on partial removals
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 17:34, David Capwell <dc...@apple.com> wrote:
>> +1 to drop the whole lib…
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. -1 on selectively removing any of the libs. But +1 for removing the whole thing if it is no longer used.
>>>
>>> -Jeremiah
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM, Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for bring this to dev@
>>>>
>>>> I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723), PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this on the ticket too.
>>>>
>>>> +1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>.
+1 on removal the whole lib if we are sure we don’t need it. Nothing better
than some healthy house cleaning
-1 on partial removals
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 17:34, David Capwell <dc...@apple.com> wrote:
> +1 to drop the whole lib…
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed. -1 on selectively removing any of the libs. But +1 for removing
> the whole thing if it is no longer used.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> On Oct 20, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM, Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for bring this to dev@
>>
>> I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite
>> us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some
>> examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723),
>> PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this
>> on the ticket too.
>>
>> +1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
>>
>>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by David Capwell <dc...@apple.com>.
+1 to drop the whole lib…
> On Oct 20, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed. -1 on selectively removing any of the libs. But +1 for removing the whole thing if it is no longer used.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> On Oct 20, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM, Mick Semb Wever <mck@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks for bring this to dev@
>>
>> I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723), PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this on the ticket too.
>>
>> +1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
>>
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by Jeremiah Jordan <je...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. -1 on selectively removing any of the libs. But +1 for removing
the whole thing if it is no longer used.
-Jeremiah
On Oct 20, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM, Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>>
>
>
> Thanks for bring this to dev@
>
> I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite
> us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some
> examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723),
> PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this
> on the ticket too.
>
> +1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
>
>
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>.
>
> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?
>
Thanks for bring this to dev@
I see reason not to do it, folk do submit patches for other archs despite
us not formally maintaining and testing the code for those archs. Some
examples are PPC64 Big Endian (CASSANDRA-7476), s390x (CASSANDRA-17723),
PPC64 Little Endian (CASSANDRA-7381), sparcv9 (CASSANDRA-6628). Wrote this
on the ticket too.
+1 for removing sigar altogether (as Brandon points out).
Re: CASSANDRA-18775 (Cassandra supported OSs)
Posted by Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>.
As noted on CASSANDRA-16565 we don't actually need sigar for anything,
so I don't see a reason to keep any of it, especially if that is going
to force us to specify OSes.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:04 AM Claude Warren, Jr via dev
<de...@cassandra.apache.org> wrote:
>
> I am looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18775 and want to ensure that I do not remove too many libraries.
>
> I think that preserving any sigar library where the file name contains the word "linux" or "macosx" should be acceptable. This will preserve:
> libsigar-amd64-linux.so
> libsigar-ia64-linux.so
> libsigar-ppc-linux.so
> libsigar-ppc64-aix-5.so
> libsigar-ppc64-linux.so
> libsigar-ppc64le-linux.so
> libsigar-s390x-linux.so
> libsigar-universal-macosx.dylib
> libsigar-universal64-macosx.dylib
> libsigar-x86-linux.so
>
> and remove:
>
> libsigar-amd64-freebsd-6.so
> libsigar-amd64-solaris.so
> libsigar-ia64-hpux-11.sl
> libsigar-pa-hpux-11.sl
> libsigar-ppc-aix-5.so
> libsigar-sparc-solaris.so
> libsigar-sparc64-solaris.so
> libsigar-x86-freebsd-5.so
> libsigar-x86-freebsd-6.so
> libsigar-x86-solaris.so
>
> resulting in a savings of 3,105,384 bytes out of 6,450,526 from the /lib/sigar-bin directory, a 48% reduction.
>
> Does anyone see any reason _not_ to do this?