We're having the same problem --- the underlying bricks seem fine and the
problem appears to be that ls is reporting the wrong thing rather than there
are actually duplicate files.
We are using gluster 3.6.1-1 on machines running Scientific Linux 6.3 (we're
use the glusterfs-epel packages). The underlying bricks are all ext3.
Different client machines report different duplicate files. There doesn't seem
to be pattern to why files duplicated -- some bricks seem to have more files
that are listed as duplicates than others but no obvious pattern.
Some other oddities. We have a directory called dm512 that contains some
duplicate files.
If I do ls dm512, the duplicate files appear -- one of which is called
restart.12
But if I say "ls restart.36", the file appears only once
But if I say "ls restart.36*", the file appears twice. And using, find
find . -iname "restart.36" -exec echo "<{}>" \;
gives
<./restart.36>
<./restart.36>
We upgraded from 3.5 to 3.6 about two weeks ago and user only reported the
problem about a week ago. I don't think this necessarily means the problem
didn't occur before -- our gluster file system is a storage area for us for
relatively infrequently but important large data sets.
It's a bit unnerving for the user and causes some scripts to break, e.g., "for
x in `ls dm512`; do"
Scott
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
style="width:100%;">
<tr>
<td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif"
size="1" color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">This communication is
intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original
message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the
permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to
enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus
advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the
University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which
are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and
outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in
writing to the contrary. </span></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
