Pranith Kumar Karampuri
2016-Jul-13 04:56 UTC
[Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing broken?
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com> wrote:> 13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov < <dm at belkam.com> > dm at belkam.com> wrote: > >> 13.07.2016 08:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dmitry Melekhov < <dm at belkam.com> >> dm at belkam.com> wrote: >> >>> 13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur ?????: >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>>> From: "Dmitry Melekhov" < <dm at belkam.com>dm at belkam.com> >>>>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" < <pkarampu at redhat.com> >>>>> pkarampu at redhat.com> >>>>> Cc: "gluster-users" < <gluster-users at gluster.org> >>>>> gluster-users at gluster.org> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:27:17 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing broken? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 12.07.2016 17:39, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wow, what are the steps to recreate the problem? >>>>> >>>>> just set file length to zero, always reproducible. >>>>> >>>>> If you are setting the file length to 0 on one of the bricks (looks >>>> like >>>> that is the case), it is not a bug. >>>> >>>> Index heal relies on failures seen from the mount point(s) >>>> to identify the files that need heal. It won't be able to recognize any >>>> file >>>> modification done directly on bricks. Same goes for heal info command >>>> which >>>> is the reason heal info also shows 0 entries. >>>> >>> >>> Well, this makes self-heal useless then- if any file is accidently >>> corrupted or deleted (yes! if file is deleted directly from brick this is >>> no recognized by idex heal too), then it will not be self-healed, because >>> self-heal uses index heal. >>> >> >> It is better to look into bit-rot feature if you want to guard against >> these kinds of problems. >> >> >> Bit rot detects bit problems, not missing files or their wrong length, >> i.e. this is overhead for such simple task. >> > > It detects wrong length. Because checksum won't match anymore. > > > Yes, sure. I guess that it will detect missed files too. But it needs far > more resources, then just comparing directories in bricks? > > > What use-case you are trying out is leading to changing things directly on > the brick? > > I'm trying to test gluster failure tolerance and right now I'm not happy > with it... >Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes directly on the brick or anything else as well?> > > > >> >> Thank you! >> >> >-- Pranith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160713/6ee1c9a2/attachment.html>
13.07.2016 08:56, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????:> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com > <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> wrote: > > 13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com >> <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> wrote: >> >> 13.07.2016 08:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dmitry Melekhov >>> <dm at belkam.com <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> wrote: >>> >>> 13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur ?????: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: "Dmitry Melekhov" <dm at belkam.com >>> <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> >>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" >>> <pkarampu at redhat.com <mailto:pkarampu at redhat.com>> >>> Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org >>> <mailto:gluster-users at gluster.org>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:27:17 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index >>> healing broken? >>> >>> >>> >>> 12.07.2016 17:39, Pranith Kumar Karampuri ?????: >>> >>> >>> >>> Wow, what are the steps to recreate the problem? >>> >>> just set file length to zero, always reproducible. >>> >>> If you are setting the file length to 0 on one of >>> the bricks (looks like >>> that is the case), it is not a bug. >>> >>> Index heal relies on failures seen from the mount >>> point(s) >>> to identify the files that need heal. It won't be >>> able to recognize any file >>> modification done directly on bricks. Same goes for >>> heal info command which >>> is the reason heal info also shows 0 entries. >>> >>> >>> Well, this makes self-heal useless then- if any file is >>> accidently corrupted or deleted (yes! if file is deleted >>> directly from brick this is no recognized by idex heal >>> too), then it will not be self-healed, because self-heal >>> uses index heal. >>> >>> >>> It is better to look into bit-rot feature if you want to >>> guard against these kinds of problems. >> >> Bit rot detects bit problems, not missing files or their >> wrong length, i.e. this is overhead for such simple task. >> >> >> It detects wrong length. Because checksum won't match anymore. > > Yes, sure. I guess that it will detect missed files too. But it > needs far more resources, then just comparing directories in bricks? >> >> What use-case you are trying out is leading to changing things >> directly on the brick? > I'm trying to test gluster failure tolerance and right now I'm not > happy with it... > > > Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes > directly on the brick or anything else as well? >I'll repeat: As I already said- if I for some reason ( real case can be only by accident ) will delete file this will not be detected by self-heal daemon, and, thus, will lead to lower replication level, i.e. lower failure tolerance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160713/c886823a/attachment.html>