Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "shchhv01".
Did you mean:
shchhv02
2017 Dec 20
2
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
Looks like a bug as I see tier-enabled = 0 is an additional entry in the
info file in shchhv01. As per the code, this field should be written into
the glusterd store if the op-version is >= 30706 . What I am guessing is
since we didn't have the commit 33f8703a1 "glusterd: regenerate volfiles on
op-version bump up" in 3.8.4 while bumping up the op-version the info and
volfile...
2017 Dec 20
0
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
Yes Atin. I'll take a look.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> wrote:
> Looks like a bug as I see tier-enabled = 0 is an additional entry in the
> info file in shchhv01. As per the code, this field should be written into
> the glusterd store if the op-version is >= 30706 . What I am guessing is
> since we didn't have the commit 33f8703a1 "glusterd: regenerate volfiles on
> op-version bump up" in 3.8.4 while bumping up the op-version the i...
2017 Dec 20
0
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
I was attempting the same on a local sandbox and also have the same problem.
Current: 3.8.4
Volume Name: shchst01
Type: Distributed-Replicate
Volume ID: bcd53e52-cde6-4e58-85f9-71d230b7b0d3
Status: Started
Snapshot Count: 0
Number of Bricks: 4 x 3 = 12
Transport-type: tcp
Bricks:
Brick1: shchhv01-sto:/data/brick3/shchst01
Brick2: shchhv02-sto:/data/brick3/shchst01
Brick3: shchhv03-sto:/data/brick3/shchst01
Brick4: shchhv01-sto:/data/brick1/shchst01
Brick5: shchhv02-sto:/data/brick1/shchst01
Brick6: shchhv03-sto:/data/brick1/shchst01
Brick7: shchhv02-sto:/data/brick2/shchst01
Brick8: shchhv0...
2017 Dec 19
2
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
I have not done the upgrade yet. Since this is a production cluster I
need to make sure it stays up or schedule some downtime if it doesn't
doesn't. Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Ziemowit Pierzycki <ziemowit at pierzycki.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>