search for: shchst01

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "shchst01".

2017 Dec 20
2
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
...r nodes as well. @Hari - Could you help in debugging this further. On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Gustave Dahl <gustave at dahlfamily.net> wrote: > 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 &...
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 Bri...
2017 Dec 20
0
Upgrading from Gluster 3.8 to 3.12
...further. > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Gustave Dahl <gustave at dahlfamily.net> > wrote: >> >> 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:...
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, >>