similar to: peer detach fails

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com> 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 > > Volume Name: thedude > Type: Replicate > Volume ID: bc68dfd3-94e2-4126-b04d-77b51ec6f27e >

Hi, The existing syntax in the gluster CLI for creating arbiter volumes is `gluster volume create <volname> replica 3 arbiter 1 <list of bricks>` . It means (or at least intended to mean) that out of the 3 bricks, 1 brick is the arbiter. There has been some feedback while implementing arbiter support in glusterd2 for glusterfs-4.0 that we should change this to `replica 2 arbiter

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 > >

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

I must ask again, just to be sure. Is what you are proposing definitely supported in v3.8? Kind regards, Mitja On 25/02/2018 13:55, Jim Kinney wrote: > gluster volume add-brick volname replica 3 arbiter 1 > brickhost:brickpath/to/new/arbitervol > > Yes. The replica 3 looks odd. Somewhere in 3.12 (?) or not until v4 a > change in command will happen so it won't count the

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

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

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. >

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

Hi, It should be there, see https://review.gluster.org/#/c/14502/ <https://review.gluster.org/#/c/14502/> BR, Martin > On 25 Feb 2018, at 15:52, Mitja Miheli? <mitja.mihelic at arnes.si> wrote: > > I must ask again, just to be sure. Is what you are proposing definitely supported in v3.8? > > Kind regards, > Mitja > > On 25/02/2018 13:55, Jim Kinney wrote:

gluster volume add-brick volname replica 3 arbiter 1 brickhost:brickpath/to/new/arbitervol Yes. The replica 3 looks odd. Somewhere in 3.12 (?) or not until v4 a change in command will happen so it won't count the arbiter as a replica. On February 25, 2018 5:05:04 AM EST, "Mitja Miheli?" <mitja.mihelic at arnes.si> wrote: >Hi! > >I am using GlusterFS on CentOS7 with

Hello, I'm designing a 2-node, HA NAS that must support NFS. I had planned on using GlusterFS native NFS until I saw that it is being deprecated. Then, I was going to use GlusterFS + NFS-Ganesha until I saw that the Ganesha HA support ended after 3.10 and its replacement is still a WIP. So, I landed on GlusterFS + kernel NFS + corosync & pacemaker, which seems to work quite well. Are

Hi Jim, Can you check whether the same hardlinks are present on both the bricks & both of them have the link count 2? If the link count is 2 then "find <brickpath> -samefile <brickpath/.glusterfs/<first two bits of gfid>/<next 2 bits of gfid>/<full gfid>" should give you the file path. Regards, Karthik On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Jim Kinney

In my case I was able to delete the hard links in the .glusterfs folders of the bricks and it seems to have done the trick, thanks! From: Karthik Subrahmanya [mailto:ksubrahm at redhat.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:52 AM To: Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com>; Matt Waymack <mwaymack at nsgdv.com> Cc: gluster-users <Gluster-users at gluster.org> Subject: Re:

I'm not so lucky. ALL of mine show 2 links and none have the attr data that supplies the path to the original. I have the inode from stat. Looking now to dig out the path/filename from xfs_db on the specific inodes individually. Is the hash of the filename or <path>/filename and if so relative to where? /, <path from top of brick>, ? On Mon, 2017-10-23 at 18:54 +0000, Matt Waymack

I have 14,734 GFIDS that are different. All the different ones are only on the brick that was live during the outage and concurrent file copy- in. The brick that was down at that time has no GFIDs that are not also on the up brick. As the bricks are 10TB, the find is going to be a long running process. I'm running several finds at once with gnu parallel but it will still take some time.

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 am using GlusterFS on CentOS7 with glusterfs-3.8.15 RPM version. I currently have a replica 2 running and I would like to get rid of the split-brain problem before it occurs. This is one of the possible solutions. Is it possible to and an arbiter to this volume? I have read in a thread from 2016 that this feature is planned for version 3.8. Is the feature available? If so, could you give

Hi Jim & Matt, Can you also check for the link count in the stat output of those hardlink entries in the .glusterfs folder on the bricks. If the link count is 1 on all the bricks for those entries, then they are orphaned entries and you can delete those hardlinks. To be on the safer side have a backup before deleting any of the entries. Regards, Karthik On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Jim