Artem Russakovskii
2019-Mar-07 06:23 UTC
[Gluster-users] Upgrade 5.3 -> 5.4 on debian: public IP is used instead of LAN IP
Is the next release going to be an imminent hotfix, i.e. something like today/tomorrow, or are we talking weeks? Sincerely, Artem -- Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com> wrote:> Ended up downgrading to 5.3 just in case. Peer status and volume status > are OK now. > > zypper install --oldpackage glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1 > Loading repository data... > Reading installed packages... > Resolving package dependencies... > > Problem: glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 requires libgfapi0 = 5.3, but > this requirement cannot be provided > not installable providers: libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64[glusterfs] > Solution 1: Following actions will be done: > downgrade of libgfapi0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to > libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > downgrade of libgfchangelog0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to > libgfchangelog0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > downgrade of libgfrpc0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to > libgfrpc0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > downgrade of libgfxdr0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to > libgfxdr0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > downgrade of libglusterfs0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to > libglusterfs0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > Solution 2: do not install glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 > Solution 3: break glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 by ignoring some of > its dependencies > > Choose from above solutions by number or cancel [1/2/3/c] (c): 1 > Resolving dependencies... > Resolving package dependencies... > > The following 6 packages are going to be downgraded: > glusterfs libgfapi0 libgfchangelog0 libgfrpc0 libgfxdr0 libglusterfs0 > > 6 packages to downgrade. > > Sincerely, > Artem > > -- > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC > beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:57 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Noticed the same when upgrading from 5.3 to 5.4, as mentioned. >> >> I'm confused though. Is actual replication affected, because the 5.4 >> server and the 3x 5.3 servers still show heal info as all 4 connected, and >> the files seem to be replicating correctly as well. >> >> So what's actually affected - just the status command, or leaving 5.4 on >> one of the nodes is doing some damage to the underlying fs? Is it fixable >> by tweaking transport.socket.ssl-enabled? Does upgrading all servers to 5.4 >> resolve it, or should we revert back to 5.3? >> >> Sincerely, >> Artem >> >> -- >> Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii >> <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:02 AM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> fyi: did a downgrade 5.4 -> 5.3 and it worked. all replicas are up and >>> running. Awaiting updated v5.4. >>> >>> thx :-) >>> >>> Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Hari Gowtham < >>> hgowtham at redhat.com>: >>> > >>> > There are plans to revert the patch causing this error and rebuilt 5.4. >>> > This should happen faster. the rebuilt 5.4 should be void of this >>> upgrade issue. >>> > >>> > In the meantime, you can use 5.3 for this cluster. >>> > Downgrading to 5.3 will work if it was just one node that was upgrade >>> to 5.4 >>> > and the other nodes are still in 5.3. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:07 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Hi Hari, >>> > > >>> > > thx for the hint. Do you know when this will be fixed? Is a downgrade >>> > > 5.4 -> 5.3 a possibility to fix this? >>> > > >>> > > Hubert >>> > > >>> > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 08:32 Uhr schrieb Hari Gowtham < >>> hgowtham at redhat.com>: >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi, >>> > > > >>> > > > This is a known issue we are working on. >>> > > > As the checksum differs between the updated and non updated node, >>> the >>> > > > peers are getting rejected. >>> > > > The bricks aren't coming because of the same issue. >>> > > > >>> > > > More about the issue: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685120 >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:56 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Interestingly: gluster volume status misses gluster1, while heal >>> > > > > statistics show gluster1: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > gluster volume status workdata >>> > > > > Status of volume: workdata >>> > > > > Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port >>> Online Pid >>> > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>> Y 1723 >>> > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>> Y 2068 >>> > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>> Y 1732 >>> > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 N/A N/A >>> Y 2077 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > vs. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > gluster volume heal workdata statistics heal-count >>> > > > > Gathering count of entries to be healed on volume workdata has >>> been successful >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata >>> > > > > Number of entries: 0 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata >>> > > > > Number of entries: 10745 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata >>> > > > > Number of entries: 10744 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 08:18 Uhr schrieb Hu Bert < >>> revirii at googlemail.com>: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hi Miling, >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > well, there are such entries, but those haven't been a problem >>> during >>> > > > > > install and the last kernel update+reboot. The entries look >>> like: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > PUBLIC_IP gluster2.alpserver.de gluster2 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 192.168.0.50 gluster1 >>> > > > > > 192.168.0.51 gluster2 >>> > > > > > 192.168.0.52 gluster3 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 'ping gluster2' resolves to LAN IP; I removed the last entry >>> in the >>> > > > > > 1st line, did a reboot ... no, didn't help. From >>> > > > > > /var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log >>> > > > > > on gluster 2: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188128] E [MSGID: 106010] >>> > > > > > [glusterd-utils.c:3483:glusterd_compare_friend_volume] >>> 0-management: >>> > > > > > Version of Cksums persistent differ. local cksum = 3950307018, >>> remote >>> > > > > > cksum = 455409345 on peer gluster1 >>> > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188314] I [MSGID: 106493] >>> > > > > > [glusterd-handler.c:3843:glusterd_xfer_friend_add_resp] >>> 0-glusterd: >>> > > > > > Responded to gluster1 (0), ret: 0, op_ret: -1 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Interestingly there are no entries in the brick logs of the >>> rejected >>> > > > > > server. Well, not surprising as no brick process is running. >>> The >>> > > > > > server gluster1 is still in rejected state. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > 'gluster volume start workdata force' starts the brick process >>> on >>> > > > > > gluster1, and some heals are happening on gluster2+3, but via >>> 'gluster >>> > > > > > volume status workdata' the volumes still aren't complete. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > gluster1: >>> > > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata 49152 0 >>> Y 2523 >>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>> Y 2549 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > gluster2: >>> > > > > > Gluster process TCP Port RDMA >>> Port Online Pid >>> > > > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>> Y 1723 >>> > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>> Y 2068 >>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>> Y 1732 >>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 N/A N/A >>> Y 2077 >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hubert >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Milind Changire < >>> mchangir at redhat.com>: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > There are probably DNS entries or /etc/hosts entries with >>> the public IP Addresses that the host names (gluster1, gluster2, gluster3) >>> are getting resolved to. >>> > > > > > > /etc/resolv.conf would tell which is the default domain >>> searched for the node names and the DNS servers which respond to the >>> queries. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Hu Bert < >>> revirii at googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Good morning, >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> i have a replicate 3 setup with 2 volumes, running on >>> version 5.3 on >>> > > > > > >> debian stretch. This morning i upgraded one server to >>> version 5.4 and >>> > > > > > >> rebooted the machine; after the restart i noticed that: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> - no brick process is running >>> > > > > > >> - gluster volume status only shows the server itself: >>> > > > > > >> gluster volume status workdata >>> > > > > > >> Status of volume: workdata >>> > > > > > >> Gluster process TCP Port RDMA >>> Port Online Pid >>> > > > > > >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > > > > >> Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata N/A N/A >>> N N/A >>> > > > > > >> NFS Server on localhost N/A N/A >>> N N/A >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the server >>> > > > > > >> gluster peer status >>> > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >>> > > > > > >> Uuid: c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster2 >>> > > > > > >> Uuid: 162fea82-406a-4f51-81a3-e90235d8da27 >>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the other 2 servers: >>> > > > > > >> gluster peer status >>> > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster1 >>> > > > > > >> Uuid: 9a360776-7b58-49ae-831e-a0ce4e4afbef >>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >>> > > > > > >> Uuid: c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >>> > > > > > >> State: Peer in Cluster (Connected) >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> I noticed that, in the brick logs, i see that the public IP >>> is used >>> > > > > > >> instead of the LAN IP. brick logs from one of the volumes: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> rejected node: https://pastebin.com/qkpj10Sd >>> > > > > > >> connected nodes: https://pastebin.com/8SxVVYFV >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Why is the public IP suddenly used instead of the LAN IP? >>> Killing all >>> > > > > > >> gluster processes and rebooting (again) didn't help. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Thx, >>> > > > > > >> Hubert >>> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > > >> Gluster-users mailing list >>> > > > > > >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> > > > > > >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > Milind >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > Gluster-users mailing list >>> > > > > Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> > > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Regards, >>> > > > Hari Gowtham. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards, >>> > Hari Gowtham. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190306/02e1210b/attachment.html>
Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan
2019-Mar-07 06:28 UTC
[Gluster-users] Upgrade 5.3 -> 5.4 on debian: public IP is used instead of LAN IP
We are talking days. Not weeks. Considering already it is Thursday here. 1 more day for tagging, and packaging. May be ok to expect it on Monday. -Amar On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:54 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com> wrote:> Is the next release going to be an imminent hotfix, i.e. something like > today/tomorrow, or are we talking weeks? > > Sincerely, > Artem > > -- > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC > beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ended up downgrading to 5.3 just in case. Peer status and volume status >> are OK now. >> >> zypper install --oldpackage glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1 >> Loading repository data... >> Reading installed packages... >> Resolving package dependencies... >> >> Problem: glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 requires libgfapi0 = 5.3, but >> this requirement cannot be provided >> not installable providers: libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64[glusterfs] >> Solution 1: Following actions will be done: >> downgrade of libgfapi0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> downgrade of libgfchangelog0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> libgfchangelog0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> downgrade of libgfrpc0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> libgfrpc0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> downgrade of libgfxdr0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> libgfxdr0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> downgrade of libglusterfs0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> libglusterfs0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> Solution 2: do not install glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> Solution 3: break glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 by ignoring some of >> its dependencies >> >> Choose from above solutions by number or cancel [1/2/3/c] (c): 1 >> Resolving dependencies... >> Resolving package dependencies... >> >> The following 6 packages are going to be downgraded: >> glusterfs libgfapi0 libgfchangelog0 libgfrpc0 libgfxdr0 libglusterfs0 >> >> 6 packages to downgrade. >> >> Sincerely, >> Artem >> >> -- >> Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii >> <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:57 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Noticed the same when upgrading from 5.3 to 5.4, as mentioned. >>> >>> I'm confused though. Is actual replication affected, because the 5.4 >>> server and the 3x 5.3 servers still show heal info as all 4 connected, and >>> the files seem to be replicating correctly as well. >>> >>> So what's actually affected - just the status command, or leaving 5.4 on >>> one of the nodes is doing some damage to the underlying fs? Is it fixable >>> by tweaking transport.socket.ssl-enabled? Does upgrading all servers to 5.4 >>> resolve it, or should we revert back to 5.3? >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Artem >>> >>> -- >>> Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >>> <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >>> beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii >>> <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >>> <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:02 AM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> fyi: did a downgrade 5.4 -> 5.3 and it worked. all replicas are up and >>>> running. Awaiting updated v5.4. >>>> >>>> thx :-) >>>> >>>> Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Hari Gowtham < >>>> hgowtham at redhat.com>: >>>> > >>>> > There are plans to revert the patch causing this error and rebuilt >>>> 5.4. >>>> > This should happen faster. the rebuilt 5.4 should be void of this >>>> upgrade issue. >>>> > >>>> > In the meantime, you can use 5.3 for this cluster. >>>> > Downgrading to 5.3 will work if it was just one node that was upgrade >>>> to 5.4 >>>> > and the other nodes are still in 5.3. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:07 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Hi Hari, >>>> > > >>>> > > thx for the hint. Do you know when this will be fixed? Is a >>>> downgrade >>>> > > 5.4 -> 5.3 a possibility to fix this? >>>> > > >>>> > > Hubert >>>> > > >>>> > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 08:32 Uhr schrieb Hari Gowtham < >>>> hgowtham at redhat.com>: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Hi, >>>> > > > >>>> > > > This is a known issue we are working on. >>>> > > > As the checksum differs between the updated and non updated node, >>>> the >>>> > > > peers are getting rejected. >>>> > > > The bricks aren't coming because of the same issue. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > More about the issue: >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685120 >>>> > > > >>>> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:56 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Interestingly: gluster volume status misses gluster1, while heal >>>> > > > > statistics show gluster1: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > gluster volume status workdata >>>> > > > > Status of volume: workdata >>>> > > > > Gluster process TCP Port RDMA >>>> Port Online Pid >>>> > > > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>>> Y 1723 >>>> > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>>> Y 2068 >>>> > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>>> Y 1732 >>>> > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 N/A N/A >>>> Y 2077 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > vs. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > gluster volume heal workdata statistics heal-count >>>> > > > > Gathering count of entries to be healed on volume workdata has >>>> been successful >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata >>>> > > > > Number of entries: 0 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata >>>> > > > > Number of entries: 10745 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata >>>> > > > > Number of entries: 10744 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 08:18 Uhr schrieb Hu Bert < >>>> revirii at googlemail.com>: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Hi Miling, >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > well, there are such entries, but those haven't been a >>>> problem during >>>> > > > > > install and the last kernel update+reboot. The entries look >>>> like: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > PUBLIC_IP gluster2.alpserver.de gluster2 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > 192.168.0.50 gluster1 >>>> > > > > > 192.168.0.51 gluster2 >>>> > > > > > 192.168.0.52 gluster3 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > 'ping gluster2' resolves to LAN IP; I removed the last entry >>>> in the >>>> > > > > > 1st line, did a reboot ... no, didn't help. From >>>> > > > > > /var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log >>>> > > > > > on gluster 2: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188128] E [MSGID: 106010] >>>> > > > > > [glusterd-utils.c:3483:glusterd_compare_friend_volume] >>>> 0-management: >>>> > > > > > Version of Cksums persistent differ. local cksum >>>> 3950307018, remote >>>> > > > > > cksum = 455409345 on peer gluster1 >>>> > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188314] I [MSGID: 106493] >>>> > > > > > [glusterd-handler.c:3843:glusterd_xfer_friend_add_resp] >>>> 0-glusterd: >>>> > > > > > Responded to gluster1 (0), ret: 0, op_ret: -1 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Interestingly there are no entries in the brick logs of the >>>> rejected >>>> > > > > > server. Well, not surprising as no brick process is running. >>>> The >>>> > > > > > server gluster1 is still in rejected state. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > 'gluster volume start workdata force' starts the brick >>>> process on >>>> > > > > > gluster1, and some heals are happening on gluster2+3, but via >>>> 'gluster >>>> > > > > > volume status workdata' the volumes still aren't complete. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > gluster1: >>>> > > > > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata 49152 0 >>>> Y 2523 >>>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>>> Y 2549 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > gluster2: >>>> > > > > > Gluster process TCP Port RDMA >>>> Port Online Pid >>>> > > > > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>>> Y 1723 >>>> > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata 49153 0 >>>> Y 2068 >>>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A >>>> Y 1732 >>>> > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 N/A N/A >>>> Y 2077 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Hubert >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Am Di., 5. M?rz 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Milind Changire < >>>> mchangir at redhat.com>: >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > There are probably DNS entries or /etc/hosts entries with >>>> the public IP Addresses that the host names (gluster1, gluster2, gluster3) >>>> are getting resolved to. >>>> > > > > > > /etc/resolv.conf would tell which is the default domain >>>> searched for the node names and the DNS servers which respond to the >>>> queries. >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Hu Bert < >>>> revirii at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Good morning, >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> i have a replicate 3 setup with 2 volumes, running on >>>> version 5.3 on >>>> > > > > > >> debian stretch. This morning i upgraded one server to >>>> version 5.4 and >>>> > > > > > >> rebooted the machine; after the restart i noticed that: >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> - no brick process is running >>>> > > > > > >> - gluster volume status only shows the server itself: >>>> > > > > > >> gluster volume status workdata >>>> > > > > > >> Status of volume: workdata >>>> > > > > > >> Gluster process TCP Port RDMA >>>> Port Online Pid >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > > > > > >> Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata N/A N/A >>>> N N/A >>>> > > > > > >> NFS Server on localhost N/A N/A >>>> N N/A >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the server >>>> > > > > > >> gluster peer status >>>> > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >>>> > > > > > >> Uuid: c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >>>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster2 >>>> > > > > > >> Uuid: 162fea82-406a-4f51-81a3-e90235d8da27 >>>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the other 2 servers: >>>> > > > > > >> gluster peer status >>>> > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster1 >>>> > > > > > >> Uuid: 9a360776-7b58-49ae-831e-a0ce4e4afbef >>>> > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >>>> > > > > > >> Uuid: c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >>>> > > > > > >> State: Peer in Cluster (Connected) >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> I noticed that, in the brick logs, i see that the public >>>> IP is used >>>> > > > > > >> instead of the LAN IP. brick logs from one of the volumes: >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> rejected node: https://pastebin.com/qkpj10Sd >>>> > > > > > >> connected nodes: https://pastebin.com/8SxVVYFV >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Why is the public IP suddenly used instead of the LAN IP? >>>> Killing all >>>> > > > > > >> gluster processes and rebooting (again) didn't help. >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> Thx, >>>> > > > > > >> Hubert >>>> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >>>> > > > > > >> Gluster-users mailing list >>>> > > > > > >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>>> > > > > > >> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > -- >>>> > > > > > > Milind >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > > > Gluster-users mailing list >>>> > > > > Gluster-users at gluster.org >>>> > > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > -- >>>> > > > Regards, >>>> > > > Hari Gowtham. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Hari Gowtham. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gluster-users mailing list >>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >>> _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users-- Amar Tumballi (amarts) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190307/7e03818f/attachment.html>