On 3/15/12 8:25 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 07:50 -0400, Jim Lawson wrote: >> On 3/15/12 6:02 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 15.3.2012, at 3.24, Jim Lawson wrote: >>>> We have a 2-node director setup which front-ends for 4 nodes which share >>>> a clustered filesystem (GFS). All nodes run Dovecot 2.0.18. >>> .. >>>> Mar 14 20:40:38 imapdir2 dovecot: lmtp(10692): Panic: file >>>> lmtp-proxy.c: line 376 (lmtp_proxy_output_timeout): assertion failed: >>>> (proxy->data_input >>>> ->eof) >>> I pretty much rewrote the LMTP proxying code in v2.1, so there's a very >>> good chance that it's already been fixed. >>> >> I'll give it a shot. For the purposes of doing a rolling upgrade, is it >> reasonable to expect a 2.0.18 director to peer with a 2.1.1 director for >> the duration, or should I split-brain them during the upgrade? > I'm almost certain that v2.1.1 talks compatible protocol with v2.0. The > current hg version has some extra features, but it doesn't use them > until all of the directors have upgraded to the new version. > Trying with v2.1.2 (peer is v2.0.18):
Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Panic: file director.c: line 295 (director_sync): assertion failed: (!dir->ring_synced || (dir->left == NULL && dir->right == NULL)) Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Fatal: master: service(director): child 513 killed with signal 6 (core not dumped) Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Error: Director 132.198.100.149:9090/right disconnected Which is OK, I can run them split-brained (rules in iptables to prevent directors from talking) while I move users around. It'll mean poor performance for GFS for the duration, but that's better than an outage. The good news is, the lmtp problem I wrote about above appears to be fixed. Thanks !!! Jim
