[Gluster-users] gluster 5.3: file or directory not read-/writeable, although it exists - cache?

[Hu Bert]

a little update: it seems to be only one client. Whenever there's a
"no such file or directory" error in the logs, the directory can be
read/opened on all the other clients. very strange...

Nothing in glusterfs logs besides the zillion "dict is NULL [Invalid
argument]" warnings. Must be something on the client itself.

Am Di., 19. Feb. 2019 um 10:47 Uhr schrieb Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com>:
>
> Hello @ll,
>
> one of our backend developers told me that, in the tomcat logs, he
> sees errors that directories on a glusterfs mount aren't readable.
> Within tomcat the errors look like this:
>
> 2019-02-19 07:39:27,124 WARN  Path
> /data/repository/shared/public/staticmap/370/626 is existed but it is
> not directory
> java.nio.file.FileAlreadyExistsException:
> /data/repository/shared/public/staticmap/370/626
>
> But the basic directory does exist, has been created on 2019-02-18
> (and is readable on other clients):
>
> ls -lah /data/repository/shared/public/staticmap/370/626/
> total 36K
> drwxr-xr-x   9 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 12:15 .
> drwxr-xr-x 522 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 19 10:29 ..
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 11:45 37062632
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 19 09:29 37062647
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 12:15 37062663
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 11:18 37062668
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 11:36 37062681
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 18 16:53 37062682
> drwxr-xr-x   2 tomcat8 tomcat8 4.0K Feb 19 08:19 37062688
>
> gluster v5.3, debian stretch.
> gluster volume info: https://pastebin.com/UBVWSUex
> gluster volume status: https://pastebin.com/3guxFq5m
>
> mount options on client:
> gluster1:/workdata /data/repository/shared/public glusterfs
> defaults,_netdev,lru-limit=0,backup-volfile-servers=gluster2:gluster3
> 0 0
>
> brick mount options:
> /dev/md/4  /gluster/md4  xfs  inode64,noatime,nodiratime  0 0
>
> Hmm... problem with mount options? Or is some cache involved?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Hubert