[Gluster-users] 3.3beta2 on centos 6.2 seems very broken

Joe Pruett joey at q7.com
Wed Jan 25 20:07:49 UTC 2012

even worse problems going back to 3.3beta2 with xfs.  start doing a
large copy via fuse client and stop glusterd on one brick, wait a minute
and restart.  get an error like "endpoint not connected" from cp and
then a bunch of failed copies from "no such file or directory".  i'd say
that the beta code is truly beta :-).  i'll be listening to the gluster
future webinar tomorrow,  hopefully there will be some good info about
3.3 in there.

On 01/25/2012 11:41 AM, Joe Pruett wrote:
> i have been repeating my tests with the 3.2.5 release and i'm not seeing
> any problems.  so i think there is something wrong with the healing code
> in 3.3beta2.  i'll try again with xfs under 3.3beta2 just to see if this
> is somehow connected to ext4.
> On 01/16/2012 01:44 PM, Joe Pruett wrote:
>> i have been playing with 3.3beta2 for a few weeks now and i can easily
>> create inconsistencies between replicas.
>> my first test was to start an rsync from a client using the gluster fuse
>> code and then reboot one of the servers.  after the rsync finishes, i
>> can see that the replicas are out of sync (which is to be expected), so
>> i start a self-heal via find.  after that has run to completion, i don't
>> see any xattrs that indicate there are any files out of sync.  but a
>> simple du/df shows that the two replicas aren't using the same amount of
>> space, so i dig further via find -ls on each replica and then compare
>> those outputs, and i'll find one or more files that are truncated on the
>> server that i rebooted.
>> i have been using the 3.3 beta code because i wanted to play with the s3
>> layer, but this simple test makes me wonder what's going on.
>> i guess i could try 3.2 and see if i can create the problem there, but i
>> was kind of hoping that this basic layer of the code wouldn't have been
>> touched that much from 3.2 to 3.3.
>> the files in question so far have been large files, so that could be a
>> clue.  maybe centos 6.2 is to blame?
>> anyone else trying these simple kinds of tests? i don't see anything
>> obvious in the logs.
>> any suggestions from the list? 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list