search for: bitrotted

Hi, I have a question regarding bitrot detection. Following the RedHat manual (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.3/html/administration_guide/bitrot-restore_corrupt_file) I am trying out bad-file-restoration after bitrot. "gluster volume bitrot VOLNAME status" gets me the GFIDs that are corrupt and on which Host this happens. As far as I can tell

resending mail. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Amudhan P <amudhan83 at gmail.com> wrote: > ok, from bitrot code I figured out gluster using sha256 hashing algo. > > > Now coming to the problem, during scrub run in my cluster some of my files > were marked as bad in few set of nodes. > I just wanted to confirm bad file. so, I have used "sha256sum" tool in >

On 04/17/2018 06:25 PM, Omar Kohl wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question regarding bitrot detection. > > Following the RedHat manual (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.3/html/administration_guide/bitrot-restore_corrupt_file) I am trying out bad-file-restoration after bitrot. > > "gluster volume bitrot VOLNAME status" gets me the

my volume is distributed disperse volume 8+2 EC. file1 and file2 are different files lying in same brick. I am able to read the file from mount point without any issue because of EC it reads rest of the available blocks in other nodes. my question is "file1" sha256 value matches bitrot signature value but still, it is also marked as bad by scrubber daemon. why is that? On Fri, Sep

Hi, I have a file in my brick which was signed by bitrot and latter when running scrub it was marked as bad. Now, I want to verify file again manually. just to clarify my doubt how can I do this? regards Amudhan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170921/f69ff7be/attachment.html>

ok, from bitrot code I figured out gluster using sha256 hashing algo. Now coming to the problem, during scrub run in my cluster some of my files were marked as bad in few set of nodes. I just wanted to confirm bad file. so, I have used "sha256sum" tool in Linux to manually get file hash. here is the result. file-1, file-2 marked as bad by scrub and file-3 is healthy. file-1 sha256

Hi Amudhan, Sorry for the late response as I was busy with other things. You are right bitrot uses sha256 for checksum. If file-1, file-2 are marked bad, the I/O should be errored out with EIO. If that is not happening, we need to look further into it. But what's the file contents of file-1 and file-2 on the replica bricks ? Are they matching ? Thanks and Regards, Kotresh HR On Mon, Sep 25,

Hi Sweta, Thanks, this drive me some more questions: 1. What is the reason of delaying signature creation ? 2. As a same file (replicated or dispersed) having different signature thought bricks is by definition an error, it would be good to triggered it during a scrub, or with a different tool. Is something like this planned ? Cheers ? C?dric Lemarchand > On 18 Apr 2018, at 07:53, Sweta

IIRC, uncorrectable bitrot even in a nonessential file detected by ZFS used to cause a kernel panic. Bug ID 4924238 was closed with the claim that bitrot-induced panics is not a bug, but the description did mention an open bug ID 4879357, which suggests that it''s considered a bug after all. Can somebody clarify the intended behavior? For example, if I''m running Solaris in a VM,

Hello, I am playing around with the bitrot feature and have some questions: 1. when a file is created, the "trusted.bit-rot.signature? attribute seems only created approximatively 120 seconds after its creations (the cluster is idle and there is only one file living on it). Why ? Is there a way to make this attribute generated at the same time of the file creation ? 2. corrupting a file

Any update? On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Amudhan P <amudhan83 at gmail.com> wrote: > any update?. > > why is it marked bad? > > Any way to find out what happened to the file? > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Amudhan P <amudhan83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> my volume is distributed disperse volume 8+2 EC. >> file1 and file2 are

Hi Cedric, Any file is picked up for signing by the bitd process after the predetermined wait of 120 seconds. This default value is captured in the volume option 'features.expiry-time' and is configurable - in your case, it can be set to 0 or 1. Point 2 is correct. A file corrupted before the bitrot signature is generated will not be successfully detected by the scrubber. That would

Hi, we use a bunch of replicated gluster volumes as a backend for our backup. Yesterday I noticed that some synthetic backups failed because of I/O errors. Today I ran "find /gluster_vol -type f | xargs md5sum" and got loads of I/O errors. The brick log file shows the below errors [2017-06-19 13:42:33.554875] E [MSGID: 116020] [bit-rot-stub.c:566:br_stub_check_bad_object]

Hi, I checked the attributes of one of the files with I/O errors root at chastcvtprd04:~# getfattr -d -e hex -m - /data/glusterfs/Server_Standard/1I-1-14/brick/Server_Standard/CV_MAGNETIC/V_1050932/CHUNK_11126559/SFILE_CONTAINER_014 getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file:

On 04/11/15 09:08, cbergstrom at pathscale.com wrote: > Is anyone actually and or actively working on this? > Github.com/pathscale/pscnv is totally bitrot but waaay more portable > base. Nouveau made hard Linux assumptions that will be difficult to > overcome afaik. As pointed out by Ilia, this is not true anymore. Nouveau can also partially run in the userspace, the hard

Hi, Just to follow up my first observation from this email from december: automatic scheduled scrubs that not happen. We have now upgraded glusterfs from 7.4 to 10.1, and now see that the automated scrubs ARE running now. Not sure why they didn't in 7.4, but issue solved. :-) MJ On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 13:38, cYuSeDfZfb cYuSeDfZfb <cyusedfzfb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I

I've read that LiveValues has been removed from trunk. Did it bitrot or was simply removed because a replacement is available? If it's the former, what caused the bitrotting? If it's the latter, what's the replacement? (I've found LiveVariables but I'm not sure it can be used in a ModulePass). b.r. -- Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com <mailto:cafxx

On 04/11/15 10:38, C Bergström wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Martin Peres <martin.peres at free.fr> wrote: >> On 04/11/15 09:08, cbergstrom at pathscale.com wrote: >> >> Is anyone actually and or actively working on this? >> Github.com/pathscale/pscnv is totally bitrot but waaay more portable base. >> Nouveau made hard Linux assumptions that will

...|Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From djm at mindrot.org 2003-05-14 22:32 ------- This patch has bitrotted with the introduction of the new PAM code. Discussion of password expiry handling is ongoing in bug #423 and bug #14 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

It use to. alphasim (the validated alpha model based on simplescalar) is better though. Also, since no one has needed to run simplescalar experiments, the alpha backend has bitrotted some. The last version that I know worked with most of spec was llvm 1.8 or so. You need to get or write an elf64 loader and fix a couple instruction implementations in simplescalar to get it to run linux binaries (I have both somewhere). Andrew On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:08 PM, ×óçù <zqll27...