similar to: Is the size of bricks limiting the size of files I can store?

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Andreas Davour <ante at update.uu.se> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Nithya Balachandran wrote: > > On 2 April 2018 at 14:48, Andreas Davour <ante at update.uu.se> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I've found something that works so weird I'm certain I have missed how >>> gluster is supposed to

Sorry about the late reply, I missed seeing your mail. To begin with, what is your use-case? Sharding is currently supported only for virtual machine image storage use-case. It *could* work in other single-writer use-cases but it's only tested thoroughly for the vm use-case. If yours is not a vm store use-case, you might want to do some tests first to see if it works fine. If you find any

On April 12, 2018 3:48:32 PM EDT, Andreas Davour <ante at Update.UU.SE> wrote: >On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Jim Kinney wrote: > >> On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 20:07 +0200, Andreas Davour wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Nithya Balachandran wrote: >>> >>>> On 2 April 2018 at 14:48, Andreas Davour <ante at update.uu.se> wrote: >>>>

On 2 April 2018 at 14:48, Andreas Davour <ante at update.uu.se> wrote: > > Hi > > I've found something that works so weird I'm certain I have missed how > gluster is supposed to be used, but I can not figure out how. This is my > scenario. > > I have a volume, created from 16 nodes, each with a brick of the same > size. The total of that volume thus is in

I just noticed that gluster volume info foo and gluster volume heal foo statistics use different indices for brick numbers. Info uses 1 based but heal statistics uses 0 based. gluster volume info clifford Volume Name: cliffordType: Distributed- ReplicateVolume ID: 0e33ff98-53e8-40cf-bdb0-3e18406a945aStatus: StartedSnapshot Count: 0Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4Transport-type: tcpBricks:Brick1:

I upgraded my ovirt stack to 3.12.9, added a brick to a volume and left it to settle. No problems. I am now running replica 4 (preparing to remove a brick and host to replica 3). On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 14:24 +0000, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > Il giorno ven 4 mag 2018 alle ore 14:06 Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail. > com> > ha scritto: > > It stopped being an outstanding

What shard corruption bug? bugzilla url? I'm running into some odd behavior in my lab with shards and RHEV/KVM data, trying to figure out if it's related. Thanks. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote: > I upgraded my ovirt stack to 3.12.9, added a brick to a volume and left it > to settle. No problems. I am now running replica 4

https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/release-notes/3.12.6/ The major issue in 3.12.6 is not present in 3.12.7. Bugzilla ID listed in link. On May 29, 2018 8:50:56 PM EDT, Dan Lavu <dan at redhat.com> wrote: >What shard corruption bug? bugzilla url? I'm running into some odd >behavior >in my lab with shards and RHEV/KVM data, trying to figure out if it's >related. >

correct. a new server will NOT add space in this manner. But the original Q was about rebalancing after adding a 4th server. If you are using distributed/replication, then yes, a new server with be adding a portion of it's space to add more space to the cluster. But in a purely replica mode, nope. On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:25 +0000, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > Il giorno mer 9 mag 2018

It all depends on how you are set up on the distribute. Think RAID 10 with 4 drives - each pair strips (distribute) and the pair of pairs replicates. On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 19:34 +0000, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > Il giorno mer 9 mag 2018 alle ore 21:31 Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail. > com> > ha scritto: > > correct. a new server will NOT add space in this manner. But the

All, I added a third peer for a arbiter brick host to replica 2 cluster. Then I realized I can't use it since it has no infiniband like the other two hosts (infiniband and ethernet for clients). So I removed the new arbiter bricks from all of the volumes. However, I can't detach the peer as it keeps saying there are bricks it hosts. Nothing in volume status or info shows that host to be

All, I had a "bad timing" event where I lost 3 drives in a RAID6 array and the structure of all of the LVM pools and nodes was lost. This array was 1/2 of a redundant (replica 2) gluster config (will be adding additional 3rd soon for split brain/redundancy with failure issues). The failed drives were replaced, the array rebuilt, all the thin_pools and thin_volumes recreated, LUKS

All, I am upgrading the storage cluster from 3.8 to 3.10 or 3.12. I have 3.12 on the ovirt cluster. I would like to change the client connection method to NFS/NFS-Ganesha as the FUSE method causes some issues with heavy python users (mmap errors on file open for write). I see that nfs-ganesha was dropped after 3.10 yet there is an updated version in the 3.12 repo for CentOS 7 (which I am

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 18:26 +0000, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > Ok, some more question as I'm still planning our SDS (but I'm prone > to use > LizardFS, gluster is too inflexible) > > Let's assume a replica 3: > > 1) currently, is not possbile to add a single server and rebalance > like any > order SDS (Ceph, Lizard, Moose, DRBD, ....), right ? In replica

Gluster does the sync part better than corosync. It's not an active/passive failover system. It more all active. Gluster handles the recovery once all nodes are back online. That requires the client tool chain to understand that a write goes to all storage devices not just the active one. 3.10 is a long term support release. Upgrading to 3.12 or 4 is not a significant issue once a replacement

On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 07:12 +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.co > m> wrote: > > > > On 01/24/2018 07:20 PM, Hoggins! wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > The subject says it all. I have a replica 3 cluster : > > > > gluster> volume info thedude > >

Il giorno ven 4 mag 2018 alle ore 14:06 Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> ha scritto: > It stopped being an outstanding issue at 3.12.7. I think it's now fixed. So, is not possible to extend and rebalance a working cluster with sharded data ? Can someone confirm this ? Maybe the ones that hit the bug in the past

Il giorno mer 9 mag 2018 alle ore 21:22 Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> ha scritto: > You can change the replica count. Add a fourth server, add it's brick to existing volume with gluster volume add-brick vol0 replica 4 newhost:/path/to/brick This doesn't add space, but only a new replica, increasing the number of copies

Il giorno mer 9 mag 2018 alle ore 21:31 Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> ha scritto: > correct. a new server will NOT add space in this manner. But the original Q was about rebalancing after adding a 4th server. If you are using distributed/replication, then yes, a new server with be adding a portion of it's space to add more space to the cluster. Wait, in a distribute-replicate,

Hi! I have about 10 projects in my Cruise. I want to use metric_fu (roodi, rcov, flay) metrics. Right now I have defined :cruise task in Rakefile in each project. Is there any convention to manage cruise configuration from one place? Gem? Plugin for Rails projects? Some good habit also for custom artifacts? -- Pozdrawiam, Sebastian Nowak http://blog.sebastiannowak.net XMPP: seban at chrome.pl