[Gluster-users] 3.7.16 with sharding corrupts VMDK files when adding and removing bricks

ML Wong wongmlb at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 18:45:46 UTC 2016

Though remove-brick is not an usual act we would do for Gluster volume,
this has consistently failed ending in corrupted gluster volume after
Sharding has been turned on. For bug1387878, it's very similar to what i
had encountered in ESXi world.  Add-brick, would run successful, but
virtual-machine files would crash after rebalance in one of my
environments. That did not happen in my another environment under same
version (3.7.16).  Difference between 2 was one is changing from Replicate
to Distributed-Replicate, but they are still configured with only
2-replicas. i will have to test 3.8.* with Ganesha to see how it goes.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <
gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1016-11-14 17:01 GMT+01:00 Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com>:
> > Accessing sharded data after disabling sharding is something that we
> > did not visualize as a valid use case at any point in time. Also, you
> > could access the contents by enabling sharding again. Given these
> > factors I think this particular problem has not been prioritized by
> > us.
> That's not true.
> If you have VMs running on a sharded volume and you disable sharding,
> with the VM still running, everything crash and could lead to data loss,
> as VM
> will be unable to find their filesystem and so on, qemu currupts the
> image and so on.....
> If I write to a file that was shareded, (in example a log file), now
> when you disable the shard,
> the application would write the existing file (the one that was the
> first shard).
> If you reenable sharding, you lost some data
> Example:
> 128MB file. shard set to 64MB. You have 2 chunks: shard1+shard2
> Now you are writing to the file:
> AAAA+BBBB are placed on shard1, CCCC+DDDD are placed on shard2
> If you disable the shard and write some extra data, EEEE, then EEEE
> would be placed after BBBB in shard1 (growing more than 64MB)
> and not on shard3
> If you re-enable shard, EEEE is lost, as gluster would expect it as
> shard3. and I think gluster will read only the first 64MB from shard1.
> If gluster read the whole file, you'll get something like this:
> in a text file this is bad, in a VM image, this mean data
> loss/corruption almost impossible to fix.
> > As with many other projects, we are in a stage today where the number
> > of users and testers far outweigh the number of developers
> > contributing code. With this state it becomes hard to prioritize
> > problems from a long todo list for developers.  If valuable community
> > members like you feel strongly about a bug or feature that need
> > attention of developers, please call such issues out on the mailing
> > list. We will be more than happy to help.
> That's why i've asked for less feature and more stability.
> If you have to prioritize, please choose all bugs that could lead to
> data corruption or similiar.
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20161114/ec2da02e/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list