13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    13.07.2016 08:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


    On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur пишет:


            ----- Original Message -----

                From: "Dmitry Melekhov" <[email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>>
                To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <[email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>>
                Cc: "gluster-users" <[email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>>
                Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:27:17 PM
                Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] 3.7.13, index healing
                broken?



                12.07.2016 17:39, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:



                Wow, what are the steps to recreate the problem?

                just set file length to zero, always reproducible.

            If you are setting the file length to 0 on one of the
            bricks (looks like
            that is the case), it is not a bug.

            Index heal relies on failures seen from the mount point(s)
            to identify the files that need heal. It won't be able to
            recognize any file
            modification done directly on bricks. Same goes for heal
            info command which
            is the reason heal info also shows 0 entries.


        Well, this makes self-heal useless then- if any file is
        accidently corrupted or deleted (yes! if file is deleted
        directly from brick this is no recognized by idex heal too),
        then it will not be self-healed, because self-heal uses index
        heal.


    It is better to look into bit-rot feature if you want to guard
    against these kinds of problems.

    Bit rot detects bit problems, not missing files or their wrong
    length, i.e. this is overhead for such simple task.


It detects wrong length. Because checksum won't match anymore.

Yes, sure. I guess that it will detect missed files too. But it needs far more resources, then just comparing directories in bricks?

What use-case you are trying out is leading to changing things directly on the brick?
I'm trying to test gluster failure tolerance and right now I'm not happy with it...



    Thank you!


_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Reply via email to