[Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing broken?

[Dmitry Melekhov]

13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com 
> <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> wrote:
>
>     13.07.2016 08:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com
>>     <mailto:dm at belkam.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur пишет:
>>
>>
>>             ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>                 From: "Dmitry Melekhov" <dm at belkam.com
>>                 <mailto:dm at belkam.com>>
>>                 To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com
>>                 <mailto:pkarampu at redhat.com>>
>>                 Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org
>>                 <mailto:gluster-users at gluster.org>>
>>                 Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:27:17 PM
>>                 Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing
>>                 broken?
>>
>>
>>
>>                 12.07.2016 17:39, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Wow, what are the steps to recreate the problem?
>>
>>                 just set file length to zero, always reproducible.
>>
>>             If you are setting the file length to 0 on one of the
>>             bricks (looks like
>>             that is the case), it is not a bug.
>>
>>             Index heal relies on failures seen from the mount point(s)
>>             to identify the files that need heal. It won't be able to
>>             recognize any file
>>             modification done directly on bricks. Same goes for heal
>>             info command which
>>             is the reason heal info also shows 0 entries.
>>
>>
>>         Well, this makes self-heal useless then- if any file is
>>         accidently corrupted or deleted (yes! if file is deleted
>>         directly from brick this is no recognized by idex heal too),
>>         then it will not be self-healed, because self-heal uses index
>>         heal.
>>
>>
>>     It is better to look into bit-rot feature if you want to guard
>>     against these kinds of problems.
>
>     Bit rot detects bit problems, not missing files or their wrong
>     length, i.e. this is overhead for such simple task.
>
>
> It detects wrong length. Because checksum won't match anymore.

Yes, sure. I guess that it will detect missed files too. But it needs 
far more resources, then just comparing directories in bricks?
>
> What use-case you are trying out is leading to changing things 
> directly on the brick?
I'm trying to test gluster failure tolerance and right now I'm not happy 
with it...

>
>
>     Thank you!
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160713/68f0a5d7/attachment.html>