[Gluster-users] Upgrade 5.3 -> 5.4 on debian: public IP is used instead of LAN IP

Hu Bert revirii at googlemail.com
Mon Mar 18 12:41:17 UTC 2019


Hi Amar,

if you refer to this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674225 : in the test
setup i haven't seen those entries, while copying & deleting a few GBs
of data. For a final statement we have to wait until i updated our
live gluster servers - could take place on tuesday or wednesday.

Maybe other users can do an update to 5.4 as well and report back here.


Hubert



Am Mo., 18. März 2019 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan
<atumball at redhat.com>:
>
> Hi Hu Bert,
>
> Appreciate the feedback. Also are the other boiling issues related to logs fixed now?
>
> -Amar
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 3:54 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> update: upgrade from 5.3 -> 5.5 in a replicate 3 test setup with 2
>> volumes done. In 'gluster peer status' the peers stay connected during
>> the upgrade, no 'peer rejected' messages. No cksum mismatches in the
>> logs. Looks good :-)
>>
>> Am Mo., 18. März 2019 um 09:54 Uhr schrieb Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com>:
>> >
>> > Good morning :-)
>> >
>> > for debian the packages are there:
>> > https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/5/5.5/Debian/stretch/amd64/apt/pool/main/g/glusterfs/
>> >
>> > I'll do an upgrade of a test installation 5.3 -> 5.5 and see if there
>> > are some errors etc. and report back.
>> >
>> > btw: no release notes for 5.4 and 5.5 so far?
>> > https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/release-notes/ ?
>> >
>> > Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 14:28 Uhr schrieb Shyam Ranganathan
>> > <srangana at redhat.com>:
>> > >
>> > > We created a 5.5 release tag, and it is under packaging now. It should
>> > > be packaged and ready for testing early next week and should be released
>> > > close to mid-week next week.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Shyam
>> > > On 3/13/19 12:34 PM, Artem Russakovskii wrote:
>> > > > Wednesday now with no update :-/
>> > > >
>> > > > Sincerely,
>> > > > Artem
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror
>> > > > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC
>> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii
>> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR
>> > > > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810 at gmail.com
>> > > > <mailto:archon810 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >     Hi Amar,
>> > > >
>> > > >     Any updates on this? I'm still not seeing it in OpenSUSE build
>> > > >     repos. Maybe later today?
>> > > >
>> > > >     Thanks.
>> > > >
>> > > >     Sincerely,
>> > > >     Artem
>> > > >
>> > > >     --
>> > > >     Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror
>> > > >     <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC
>> > > >     beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii
>> > > >     <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR
>> > > >     <http://twitter.com/ArtemR>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >     On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:30 PM Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan
>> > > >     <atumball at redhat.com <mailto:atumball at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >         We are talking days. Not weeks. Considering already it is
>> > > >         Thursday here. 1 more day for tagging, and packaging. May be ok
>> > > >         to expect it on Monday.
>> > > >
>> > > >         -Amar
>> > > >
>> > > >         On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:54 AM Artem Russakovskii
>> > > >         <archon810 at gmail.com <mailto:archon810 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >             Is the next release going to be an imminent hotfix, i.e.
>> > > >             something like today/tomorrow, or are we talking weeks?
>> > > >
>> > > >             Sincerely,
>> > > >             Artem
>> > > >
>> > > >             --
>> > > >             Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK
>> > > >             Mirror <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC
>> > > >             beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii
>> > > >             <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR
>> > > >             <http://twitter.com/ArtemR>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >             On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Artem Russakovskii
>> > > >             <archon810 at gmail.com <mailto:archon810 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >                 Ended up downgrading to 5.3 just in case. Peer status
>> > > >                 and volume status are OK now.
>> > > >
>> > > >                 zypper install --oldpackage glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1
>> > > >                 Loading repository data...
>> > > >                 Reading installed packages...
>> > > >                 Resolving package dependencies...
>> > > >
>> > > >                 Problem: glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 requires
>> > > >                 libgfapi0 = 5.3, but this requirement cannot be provided
>> > > >                   not installable providers:
>> > > >                 libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64[glusterfs]
>> > > >                  Solution 1: Following actions will be done:
>> > > >                   downgrade of libgfapi0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to
>> > > >                 libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                   downgrade of libgfchangelog0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to
>> > > >                 libgfchangelog0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                   downgrade of libgfrpc0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to
>> > > >                 libgfrpc0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                   downgrade of libgfxdr0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to
>> > > >                 libgfxdr0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                   downgrade of libglusterfs0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to
>> > > >                 libglusterfs0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                  Solution 2: do not install glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64
>> > > >                  Solution 3: break glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 by
>> > > >                 ignoring some of its dependencies
>> > > >
>> > > >                 Choose from above solutions by number or cancel
>> > > >                 [1/2/3/c] (c): 1
>> > > >                 Resolving dependencies...
>> > > >                 Resolving package dependencies...
>> > > >
>> > > >                 The following 6 packages are going to be downgraded:
>> > > >                   glusterfs libgfapi0 libgfchangelog0 libgfrpc0
>> > > >                 libgfxdr0 libglusterfs0
>> > > >
>> > > >                 6 packages to downgrade.
>> > > >
>> > > >                 Sincerely,
>> > > >                 Artem
>> > > >
>> > > >                 --
>> > > >                 Founder, Android Police
>> > > >                 <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror
>> > > >                 <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC
>> > > >                 beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii
>> > > >                 <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR
>> > > >                 <http://twitter.com/ArtemR>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >                 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:57 AM Artem Russakovskii
>> > > >                 <archon810 at gmail.com <mailto:archon810 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >                     Noticed the same when upgrading from 5.3 to 5.4, as
>> > > >                     mentioned.
>> > > >
>> > > >                     I'm confused though. Is actual replication affected,
>> > > >                     because the 5.4 server and the 3x 5.3 servers still
>> > > >                     show heal info as all 4 connected, and the files
>> > > >                     seem to be replicating correctly as well.
>> > > >
>> > > >                     So what's actually affected - just the status
>> > > >                     command, or leaving 5.4 on one of the nodes is doing
>> > > >                     some damage to the underlying fs? Is it fixable by
>> > > >                     tweaking transport.socket.ssl-enabled? Does
>> > > >                     upgrading all servers to 5.4 resolve it, or should
>> > > >                     we revert back to 5.3?
>> > > >
>> > > >                     Sincerely,
>> > > >                     Artem
>> > > >
>> > > >                     --
>> > > >                     Founder, Android Police
>> > > >                     <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror
>> > > >                     <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC
>> > > >                     beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> |
>> > > >                     +ArtemRussakovskii
>> > > >                     <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii>
>> > > >                     | @ArtemR <http://twitter.com/ArtemR>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >                     On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:02 AM Hu Bert
>> > > >                     <revirii at googlemail.com
>> > > >                     <mailto:revirii at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >                         fyi: did a downgrade 5.4 -> 5.3 and it worked.
>> > > >                         all replicas are up and
>> > > >                         running. Awaiting updated v5.4.
>> > > >
>> > > >                         thx :-)
>> > > >
>> > > >                         Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Hari
>> > > >                         Gowtham <hgowtham at redhat.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:hgowtham at redhat.com>>:
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         > There are plans to revert the patch causing
>> > > >                         this error and rebuilt 5.4.
>> > > >                         > This should happen faster. the rebuilt 5.4
>> > > >                         should be void of this upgrade issue.
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         > In the meantime, you can use 5.3 for this cluster.
>> > > >                         > Downgrading to 5.3 will work if it was just
>> > > >                         one node that was upgrade to 5.4
>> > > >                         > and the other nodes are still in 5.3.
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:07 PM Hu Bert
>> > > >                         <revirii at googlemail.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:revirii at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >                         > >
>> > > >                         > > Hi Hari,
>> > > >                         > >
>> > > >                         > > thx for the hint. Do you know when this will
>> > > >                         be fixed? Is a downgrade
>> > > >                         > > 5.4 -> 5.3 a possibility to fix this?
>> > > >                         > >
>> > > >                         > > Hubert
>> > > >                         > >
>> > > >                         > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 08:32 Uhr schrieb
>> > > >                         Hari Gowtham <hgowtham at redhat.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:hgowtham at redhat.com>>:
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > > Hi,
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > > This is a known issue we are working on.
>> > > >                         > > > As the checksum differs between the
>> > > >                         updated and non updated node, the
>> > > >                         > > > peers are getting rejected.
>> > > >                         > > > The bricks aren't coming because of the
>> > > >                         same issue.
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > > More about the issue:
>> > > >                         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685120
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:56 PM Hu Bert
>> > > >                         <revirii at googlemail.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:revirii at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > Interestingly: gluster volume status
>> > > >                         misses gluster1, while heal
>> > > >                         > > > > statistics show gluster1:
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > gluster volume status workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > Status of volume: workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > Gluster process
>> > > >                            TCP Port  RDMA Port  Online  Pid
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >                         > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                             49153     0          Y       1723
>> > > >                         > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                             49153     0          Y       2068
>> > > >                         > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost
>> > > >                            N/A       N/A        Y       1732
>> > > >                         > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3
>> > > >                             N/A       N/A        Y       2077
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > vs.
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > gluster volume heal workdata statistics
>> > > >                         heal-count
>> > > >                         > > > > Gathering count of entries to be healed
>> > > >                         on volume workdata has been successful
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > Number of entries: 0
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > Number of entries: 10745
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > Number of entries: 10744
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 08:18 Uhr
>> > > >                         schrieb Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:revirii at googlemail.com>>:
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > Hi Miling,
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > well, there are such entries, but
>> > > >                         those haven't been a problem during
>> > > >                         > > > > > install and the last kernel
>> > > >                         update+reboot. The entries look like:
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > PUBLIC_IP  gluster2.alpserver.de
>> > > >                         <http://gluster2.alpserver.de> gluster2
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > 192.168.0.50 gluster1
>> > > >                         > > > > > 192.168.0.51 gluster2
>> > > >                         > > > > > 192.168.0.52 gluster3
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > 'ping gluster2' resolves to LAN IP; I
>> > > >                         removed the last entry in the
>> > > >                         > > > > > 1st line, did a reboot ... no, didn't
>> > > >                         help. From
>> > > >                         > > > > > /var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log
>> > > >                         > > > > >  on gluster 2:
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188128] E [MSGID:
>> > > >                         106010]
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         [glusterd-utils.c:3483:glusterd_compare_friend_volume]
>> > > >                         0-management:
>> > > >                         > > > > > Version of Cksums persistent differ.
>> > > >                         local cksum = 3950307018, remote
>> > > >                         > > > > > cksum = 455409345 on peer gluster1
>> > > >                         > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188314] I [MSGID:
>> > > >                         106493]
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         [glusterd-handler.c:3843:glusterd_xfer_friend_add_resp]
>> > > >                         0-glusterd:
>> > > >                         > > > > > Responded to gluster1 (0), ret: 0,
>> > > >                         op_ret: -1
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > Interestingly there are no entries in
>> > > >                         the brick logs of the rejected
>> > > >                         > > > > > server. Well, not surprising as no
>> > > >                         brick process is running. The
>> > > >                         > > > > > server gluster1 is still in rejected
>> > > >                         state.
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > 'gluster volume start workdata force'
>> > > >                         starts the brick process on
>> > > >                         > > > > > gluster1, and some heals are happening
>> > > >                         on gluster2+3, but via 'gluster
>> > > >                         > > > > > volume status workdata' the volumes
>> > > >                         still aren't complete.
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > gluster1:
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >                         > > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                               49152     0          Y       2523
>> > > >                         > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost
>> > > >                              N/A       N/A        Y       2549
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > gluster2:
>> > > >                         > > > > > Gluster process
>> > > >                              TCP Port  RDMA Port  Online  Pid
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >                         > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                               49153     0          Y       1723
>> > > >                         > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata
>> > > >                               49153     0          Y       2068
>> > > >                         > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost
>> > > >                              N/A       N/A        Y       1732
>> > > >                         > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3
>> > > >                               N/A       N/A        Y       2077
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > Hubert
>> > > >                         > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr
>> > > >                         schrieb Milind Changire <mchangir at redhat.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:mchangir at redhat.com>>:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > > There are probably DNS entries or
>> > > >                         /etc/hosts entries with the public IP Addresses
>> > > >                         that the host names (gluster1, gluster2,
>> > > >                         gluster3) are getting resolved to.
>> > > >                         > > > > > > /etc/resolv.conf would tell which is
>> > > >                         the default domain searched for the node names
>> > > >                         and the DNS servers which respond to the queries.
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Hu
>> > > >                         Bert <revirii at googlemail.com
>> > > >                         <mailto:revirii at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Good morning,
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> i have a replicate 3 setup with 2
>> > > >                         volumes, running on version 5.3 on
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> debian stretch. This morning i
>> > > >                         upgraded one server to version 5.4 and
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> rebooted the machine; after the
>> > > >                         restart i noticed that:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> - no brick process is running
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> - gluster volume status only shows
>> > > >                         the server itself:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> gluster volume status workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Status of volume: workdata
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Gluster process
>> > > >                                  TCP Port  RDMA Port  Online  Pid
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Brick
>> > > >                         gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata        N/A
>> > > >                          N/A        N       N/A
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> NFS Server on localhost
>> > > >                                  N/A       N/A        N       N/A
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the server
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> gluster peer status
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Uuid:
>> > > >                         c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected)
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster2
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Uuid:
>> > > >                         162fea82-406a-4f51-81a3-e90235d8da27
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected)
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the other
>> > > >                         2 servers:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> gluster peer status
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster1
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Uuid:
>> > > >                         9a360776-7b58-49ae-831e-a0ce4e4afbef
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected)
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Uuid:
>> > > >                         c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> State: Peer in Cluster (Connected)
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> I noticed that, in the brick logs,
>> > > >                         i see that the public IP is used
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> instead of the LAN IP. brick logs
>> > > >                         from one of the volumes:
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> rejected node:
>> > > >                         https://pastebin.com/qkpj10Sd
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> connected nodes:
>> > > >                         https://pastebin.com/8SxVVYFV
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Why is the public IP suddenly used
>> > > >                         instead of the LAN IP? Killing all
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> gluster processes and rebooting
>> > > >                         (again) didn't help.
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Thx,
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Hubert
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         _______________________________________________
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > >                         > > > > > >> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> > > >                         <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>> > > >                         > > > > > >>
>> > > >                         https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > > > > --
>> > > >                         > > > > > > Milind
>> > > >                         > > > > > >
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         _______________________________________________
>> > > >                         > > > > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > >                         > > > > Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> > > >                         <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>> > > >                         > > > >
>> > > >                         https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > >
>> > > >                         > > > --
>> > > >                         > > > Regards,
>> > > >                         > > > Hari Gowtham.
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         >
>> > > >                         > --
>> > > >                         > Regards,
>> > > >                         > Hari Gowtham.
>> > > >                         _______________________________________________
>> > > >                         Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > >                         Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> > > >                         <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>> > > >                         https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> > > >
>> > > >             _______________________________________________
>> > > >             Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > >             Gluster-users at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>> > > >             https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >         --
>> > > >         Amar Tumballi (amarts)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > > Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Gluster-users mailing list
>> > > Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
> --
> Amar Tumballi (amarts)


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list