[Gluster-users] Add single server

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu at redhat.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <
> gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2017-04-30 10:13 GMT+02:00  <lemonnierk at ulrar.net>:
>> > I was (I believe) the first one to run into the bug, it happens and I
>> knew it
>> > was a risk when installing gluster.
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> > But since then I didn't see any warnings anywhere except here, I agree
>> > with you that it should be mentionned in big bold letters on the site.
>> >
>> > Might even be worth adding a warning directly on the cli when trying to
>> > add bricks if sharding is enabled, to make sure no-one will destroy a
>> > whole cluster for a known bug.
>>
>> Exactly. This is making me angry.
>>
>> Even $BigVendor usually release a security bulletin, in example:
>> https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX214305
>> https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX214768
>>
>> Immediatly after discovering that bug, a report was made available (on
>> official website, not on a mailinglist)
>> telling users which operations should be avoided until a fix is made.
>>
>> Gluster don't. There is a huge bug that isn't referenced in official docs.
>>
>> Is not acting like a customer, i'm just asking for some transparancy.
>>
>> Even if this is an open source project, nobody should play with user data.
>> This bug (or, better, these bugs) are know from time, an there is NO WORDS
>> in any official docs nor the web site.
>>
>> is not a rare bug, it *always* loose data when used with VMs and
>> sharding during a rebalance.
>> this feature should be disabled or users should be warned somewhere on
>> web site and not forcing
>> all of them to look through ML archives.
>>
>> Anyway, i've just asked for a feature like simplifying the add-brick
>> process. Gluster devs are free to ignore it
>> but if they are interest in something similiar, i'm willing to provide
>> more info (if I can, i'm not a developer)
>>
>> I really love gluster, lack of metadata server is awesome, files
>> stored "verbatim" with no alteration is amazing (almost all SDS alter
>> file when stored on disks)
>> but being forced to add bricks in a multiple of replica count is
>> making gluster very expesive (yes, there is a workaround with multiple
>> steps, but this is prone to
>> error, thus i'm asking to simplify this phase allowing users to add a
>> single brick to a replica X volume with automatic member replacement
>> and rebalance)
>>
>
> IMHO It is difficult to implement what you are asking for without metadata
> server which stores where each replica is stored.
>

Anther way is probably loading replica on top of distribute, but that is
architecture change and may need lot of testing and fixing corner cases. I
don't think it is easier to get this done.


>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
>



-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170501/dbda9c51/attachment.html>