<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com" target="_blank">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">2017-04-30 10:13 GMT+02:00 <<a href="mailto:lemonnierk@ulrar.net">lemonnierk@ulrar.net</a>>:<br>
> I was (I believe) the first one to run into the bug, it happens and I knew it<br>
> was a risk when installing gluster.<br>
<br>
</span>I know.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> But since then I didn't see any warnings anywhere except here, I agree<br>
> with you that it should be mentionned in big bold letters on the site.<br>
><br>
> Might even be worth adding a warning directly on the cli when trying to<br>
> add bricks if sharding is enabled, to make sure no-one will destroy a<br>
> whole cluster for a known bug.<br>
<br>
</span>Exactly. This is making me angry.<br>
<br>
Even $BigVendor usually release a security bulletin, in example:<br>
<a href="https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX214305" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://support.citrix.com/<wbr>article/CTX214305</a><br>
<a href="https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX214768" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://support.citrix.com/<wbr>article/CTX214768</a><br>
<br>
Immediatly after discovering that bug, a report was made available (on<br>
official website, not on a mailinglist)<br>
telling users which operations should be avoided until a fix is made.<br>
<br>
Gluster don't. There is a huge bug that isn't referenced in official docs.<br>
<br>
Is not acting like a customer, i'm just asking for some transparancy.<br>
<br>
Even if this is an open source project, nobody should play with user data.<br>
This bug (or, better, these bugs) are know from time, an there is NO WORDS<br>
in any official docs nor the web site.<br>
<br>
is not a rare bug, it *always* loose data when used with VMs and<br>
sharding during a rebalance.<br>
this feature should be disabled or users should be warned somewhere on<br>
web site and not forcing<br>
all of them to look through ML archives.<br>
<br>
Anyway, i've just asked for a feature like simplifying the add-brick<br>
process. Gluster devs are free to ignore it<br>
but if they are interest in something similiar, i'm willing to provide<br>
more info (if I can, i'm not a developer)<br>
<br>
I really love gluster, lack of metadata server is awesome, files<br>
stored "verbatim" with no alteration is amazing (almost all SDS alter<br>
file when stored on disks)<br>
but being forced to add bricks in a multiple of replica count is<br>
making gluster very expesive (yes, there is a workaround with multiple<br>
steps, but this is prone to<br>
error, thus i'm asking to simplify this phase allowing users to add a<br>
single brick to a replica X volume with automatic member replacement<br>
and rebalance)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IMHO It is difficult to implement what you are asking for without metadata server which stores where each replica is stored.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.gluster.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</div></div>