Il 10/03/2017 10:28, Kevin Lemonnier ha scritto:>> I haven't done any test yet, but I was under the impression that >> sharding feature isn't so stable/mature yet. >> In the remote of my mind I remember reading something about a >> bug/situation which caused data corruption. >> Can someone confirm that sharding is stable enough to be used in >> production and won't cause any data loss? > There were a few bugs yeah. I can tell you that in 3.7.15 (and I assume > later versions) it works well as long as you don't try to add new bricks > to your volumes (we use it in production for HA virtual machine disks). > Apparently that bug was fixed recently, so latest versions should be > pretty stable yeah.I'm using 3.8.9, so I suppose all known bugs have been fixed there (also the one with adding briks) I'll then proceed with some tests before going to production. Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170310/a0d53670/attachment.html>
> I'm using 3.8.9, so I suppose all known bugs have been fixed there (also > the one with adding briks)Can't comment on that, I just saw they fixed it, not sure in which version. I'd wait for someone who knows to confirm that before going into production if adding bricks is something you'll need ! -- Kevin Lemonnier PGP Fingerprint : 89A5 2283 04A0 E6E9 0111 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170310/03fd4249/attachment.sig>
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Alessandro Briosi <ab1 at metalit.com> wrote:> Il 10/03/2017 10:28, Kevin Lemonnier ha scritto: > > I haven't done any test yet, but I was under the impression that > sharding feature isn't so stable/mature yet. > In the remote of my mind I remember reading something about a > bug/situation which caused data corruption. > Can someone confirm that sharding is stable enough to be used in > production and won't cause any data loss? > > There were a few bugs yeah. I can tell you that in 3.7.15 (and I assume > later versions) it works well as long as you don't try to add new bricks > to your volumes (we use it in production for HA virtual machine disks). > Apparently that bug was fixed recently, so latest versions should be > pretty stable yeah. > > > I'm using 3.8.9, so I suppose all known bugs have been fixed there (also > the one with adding briks) >No. That one is out for review and yet to be merged. ... which again reminds me ... Niels, Care to merge the two patches? https://review.gluster.org/#/c/16749/ https://review.gluster.org/#/c/16750/ -Krutika> I'll then proceed with some tests before going to production. > > Thank you > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170310/1f6f1465/attachment.html>
> On 10 Mar 2017, at 10:33, Alessandro Briosi <ab1 at metalit.com> wrote: > > Il 10/03/2017 10:28, Kevin Lemonnier ha scritto: >>> I haven't done any test yet, but I was under the impression that >>> sharding feature isn't so stable/mature yet. >>> In the remote of my mind I remember reading something about a >>> bug/situation which caused data corruption. >>> Can someone confirm that sharding is stable enough to be used in >>> production and won't cause any data loss? >> There were a few bugs yeah. I can tell you that in 3.7.15 (and I assume >> later versions) it works well as long as you don't try to add new bricks >> to your volumes (we use it in production for HA virtual machine disks). >> Apparently that bug was fixed recently, so latest versions should be >> pretty stable yeah. > > I'm using 3.8.9, so I suppose all known bugs have been fixed there (also the one with adding briks) > > I'll then proceed with some tests before going to production.I am still asking myself how such bug could happen on a clustered storage software, where adding bricks is a base feature for scalable solution, like Gluster. Or maybe is it that STM releases are really under tested compared to LTM ones ? Could we states that STM release are really not made for production, or at least really risky ? Sorry if the question could sounds a bit rude, but I think it still remains for newish peoples that had to make a choice on which release is better for production ;-) Cheers C?dric> > Thank you > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users