[Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing broken?

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com> wrote:

> 13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov < <dm at belkam.com>
> 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>
>> dm at belkam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur пишет:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Dmitry Melekhov" < <dm at belkam.com>dm at belkam.com>
>>>>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" < <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>>>>> pkarampu at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: "gluster-users" < <gluster-users at gluster.org>
>>>>> 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...
>

Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes
directly on the brick or anything else as well?


>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>


-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160713/6ee1c9a2/attachment.html>