Manikandan, We just overwrote the setup with a fresh install and there I see the quota-version in the volume info file. For the upgraded setup, I only have the /var/lib/glusterd, which I'm attaching. Once we recreate this, I'll send you the rest of the info. However, is there an issue if the quota-version is not being in the info file? Will it cause the quota functionality to malfunction? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh <mselvaga at redhat.com> wrote:> Hi, > > Could you please attach the vol files, log files and the output of gluster > v info? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:37 PM, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Atin, >>> >>> Couple of quick questions about the upgrade and in general about the >>> meaning of some of the parameters in the glusterd dir.. >>> >>> - I dont see the quota-version in the volume info file post upgrade, so >>> did the upgrade not go through properly? >>> >> >> If you are seeing a check sum issue you'd need to copy the same volume >> info file to that node where the checksum went wrong and then restart >> glusterd service. >> And yes, this looks like a bug in quota. @Mani - time to chip in :) >> >> - What does the op-version in the volume info file mean? Does this have >>> any corelation with the cluster op-version? Does it change with an upgrade? >>> >> >> volume's op-version is different. This is basically used in checking >> client's compatibility and it shouldn't change with an upgrade AFAIK and >> remember from the code. >> >> >>> - A more basic question - should all peer probes always be done from the >>> same node or can they be done from any node that is already in the cluster? >>> The reason I ask is when I tried to do what was said in >>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >>> the initial cluster was initiated from node A with 5 other peers. Then post >>> upgrade, node B which was in the cluster got a peer rejected. So I deleted >>> all the files except glusterd.info and then did a peer probe of A from >>> B. Then when I ran a peer status on A, it only showed one node, B. Should I >>> have probed B from A instead? >>> >> >> peer probe can be done from any node in the trusted storage pool. So >> that's really not the issue. Ensure you keep all your peer file contents >> through out the same (/var/lib/glusterd/peers) where as only self uuid >> differs and then restarting glusterd service should solve the problem. >> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am suspecting it to be new quota-version introduced in the volume >>>> info file which may have resulted in a checksum mismatch resulting into >>>> peer rejection. But we can confirm it from log files and respective info >>>> file content. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday 23 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, the setup is at a customer's place which is not >>>>> remotely accessible. Will try and get it by early next week. But could it >>>>> just be a mismatch of the /var/lib/glusterd files? >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Glusterd logs from all the nodes please? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 22 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When we upgrade some nodes from 3.6.1 to 3.7.13, some of the nodes >>>>>>> give a peer status of "peer rejected" while some dont. Is there a reason >>>>>>> for this discrepency and will the steps mentioned in >>>>>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >>>>>>> work for this as well? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why the line "Try the whole procedure a >>>>>>> couple more times if it doesn't work right away." in the link above? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Atin >>>>>> Sent from iPhone >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Atin >>>> Sent from iPhone >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> --Atin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Manikandan Selvaganesh. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160725/d52f3743/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: glusterd.tar.gz Type: application/x-gzip Size: 13603 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160725/d52f3743/attachment.gz>
Manikandan Selvaganesh
2016-Jul-25 13:10 UTC
[Gluster-users] Issue when upgrading from 3.6 to 3.7
Hi, It would work fine with the upgraded setup on a fresh install. And yes, if quota-version is not present it would cause malfunctioning such as checksum issue, peer rejection and quota would not work properly. This quota-version is introduced recently which adds suffix to the quota related extended attributes. On Jul 25, 2016 6:36 PM, "B.K.Raghuram" <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:> Manikandan, > > We just overwrote the setup with a fresh install and there I see the > quota-version in the volume info file. For the upgraded setup, I only have > the /var/lib/glusterd, which I'm attaching. Once we recreate this, I'll > send you the rest of the info. > > However, is there an issue if the quota-version is not being in the info > file? Will it cause the quota functionality to malfunction? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh < > mselvaga at redhat.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Could you please attach the vol files, log files and the output of >> gluster v info? >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:37 PM, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Atin, >>>> >>>> Couple of quick questions about the upgrade and in general about the >>>> meaning of some of the parameters in the glusterd dir.. >>>> >>>> - I dont see the quota-version in the volume info file post upgrade, so >>>> did the upgrade not go through properly? >>>> >>> >>> If you are seeing a check sum issue you'd need to copy the same volume >>> info file to that node where the checksum went wrong and then restart >>> glusterd service. >>> And yes, this looks like a bug in quota. @Mani - time to chip in :) >>> >>> - What does the op-version in the volume info file mean? Does this have >>>> any corelation with the cluster op-version? Does it change with an upgrade? >>>> >>> >>> volume's op-version is different. This is basically used in checking >>> client's compatibility and it shouldn't change with an upgrade AFAIK and >>> remember from the code. >>> >>> >>>> - A more basic question - should all peer probes always be done from >>>> the same node or can they be done from any node that is already in the >>>> cluster? The reason I ask is when I tried to do what was said in >>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >>>> the initial cluster was initiated from node A with 5 other peers. Then post >>>> upgrade, node B which was in the cluster got a peer rejected. So I deleted >>>> all the files except glusterd.info and then did a peer probe of A from >>>> B. Then when I ran a peer status on A, it only showed one node, B. Should I >>>> have probed B from A instead? >>>> >>> >>> peer probe can be done from any node in the trusted storage pool. So >>> that's really not the issue. Ensure you keep all your peer file contents >>> through out the same (/var/lib/glusterd/peers) where as only self uuid >>> differs and then restarting glusterd service should solve the problem. >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am suspecting it to be new quota-version introduced in the volume >>>>> info file which may have resulted in a checksum mismatch resulting into >>>>> peer rejection. But we can confirm it from log files and respective info >>>>> file content. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 23 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the setup is at a customer's place which is not >>>>>> remotely accessible. Will try and get it by early next week. But could it >>>>>> just be a mismatch of the /var/lib/glusterd files? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Glusterd logs from all the nodes please? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday 22 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When we upgrade some nodes from 3.6.1 to 3.7.13, some of the nodes >>>>>>>> give a peer status of "peer rejected" while some dont. Is there a reason >>>>>>>> for this discrepency and will the steps mentioned in >>>>>>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >>>>>>>> work for this as well? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why the line "Try the whole procedure a >>>>>>>> couple more times if it doesn't work right away." in the link above? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Atin >>>>>>> Sent from iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Atin >>>>> Sent from iPhone >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --Atin >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org >>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Manikandan Selvaganesh. >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160725/7c15e31d/attachment.html>