[Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing broken?

[Dmitry Melekhov]

13.07.2016 08:56, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm at belkam.com 
> <mailto: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
>>     <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...
>
>
> Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes 
> directly on the brick or anything else as well?
>
I'll repeat:
As I already said- if I for some reason ( real case  can be only by 
accident ) will delete file this will not be detected by self-heal 
daemon, and, thus, will lead to lower replication level, i.e. lower 
failure tolerance.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160713/c886823a/attachment.html>