[Gluster-users] Issue when upgrading from 3.6 to 3.7

Wed Jul 27 05:21:05 UTC 2016

Hi Ram,

Apologies. I was stuck on something else. I will update you within the EOD.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Manikandan,
>
> Did you have a chance to look at the glusterd config files? We've tried a
> couple of times to upgrade from 3.6.1 and the vol info files never seems to
> get a quota-version flag in it.. One of our installations is stuck at the
> old version because of potential upgrade issues to 3.7.13.
>
> Thanks,
> -Ram
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh <
> mselvaga at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It would work fine with the upgraded setup on a fresh install. And yes,
>> if quota-version is not present it would cause malfunctioning such as
>> checksum issue, peer rejection and quota would not work properly. This
>> quota-version is introduced recently which adds suffix to the quota related
>> extended attributes.
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2016 6:36 PM, "B.K.Raghuram" <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Manikandan,
>>>
>>> We just overwrote the setup with a fresh install and there I see the
>>> quota-version in the volume info file. For the upgraded setup, I only have
>>> the /var/lib/glusterd, which I'm attaching. Once we recreate this, I'll
>>> send you the rest of the info.
>>>
>>> However, is there an issue if the quota-version is not being in the info
>>> file? Will it cause the quota functionality to malfunction?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh <
>>> mselvaga at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Could you please attach the vol files, log files and the output of
>>>> gluster v info?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:37 PM, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Atin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Couple of quick questions about the upgrade and in general about the
>>>>>> meaning of some of the parameters in the glusterd dir..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - I dont see the quota-version in the volume info file post upgrade,
>>>>>> so did the upgrade not go through properly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are seeing a check sum issue you'd need to copy the same volume
>>>>> info file to that node where the checksum went wrong and then restart
>>>>> glusterd service.
>>>>> And yes, this looks like a bug in quota. @Mani - time to chip in :)
>>>>>
>>>>> - What does the op-version in the volume info file mean? Does this
>>>>>> have any corelation with the cluster op-version? Does it change with an
>>>>>> upgrade?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> volume's op-version is different. This is basically used in checking
>>>>> client's compatibility and it shouldn't change with an upgrade AFAIK and
>>>>> remember from the code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - A more basic question - should all peer probes always be done from
>>>>>> the same node or can they be done from any node that is already in the
>>>>>> cluster? The reason I ask is when I tried to do what was said in
>>>>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/
>>>>>> the initial cluster was initiated from node A with 5 other peers. Then post
>>>>>> upgrade, node B which was in the cluster got a peer rejected. So I deleted
>>>>>> all the files except glusterd.info and then did a peer probe of A
>>>>>> from B. Then when I ran a peer status on A, it only showed one node, B.
>>>>>> Should I have probed B from A instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  peer probe can be done from any node in the trusted storage pool. So
>>>>> that's really not the issue. Ensure you keep all your peer file contents
>>>>> through out the same (/var/lib/glusterd/peers) where as only self uuid
>>>>> differs and then restarting glusterd service should solve the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am suspecting it to be new quota-version introduced in the volume
>>>>>>> info file which may have resulted in a checksum mismatch resulting into
>>>>>>> peer rejection. But we can confirm it from log files and respective info
>>>>>>> file content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday 23 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the setup is at a customer's place which is not
>>>>>>>> remotely accessible. Will try and get it by early next week. But could it
>>>>>>>> just be a mismatch of the /var/lib/glusterd files?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Atin Mukherjee <
>>>>>>>> amukherj at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glusterd logs from all the nodes please?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday 22 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we upgrade some nodes from 3.6.1 to 3.7.13, some of the
>>>>>>>>>> nodes give a peer status of "peer rejected" while some dont. Is there a
>>>>>>>>>> reason for this discrepency and will the steps mentioned in
>>>>>>>>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/
>>>>>>>>>> work for this as well?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why the line "Try the whole procedure a
>>>>>>>>>> couple more times if it doesn't work right away." in the link above?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Atin
>>>>>>>>> Sent from iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Atin
>>>>>>> Sent from iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> --Atin
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Manikandan Selvaganesh.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
Regards,
Manikandan Selvaganesh.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160727/6c903173/attachment.html>