On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет: > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov < <[email protected]> > [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]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur пишет: >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>>> From: "Dmitry Melekhov" < <[email protected]>[email protected]> >>>>> To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" < <[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> Cc: "gluster-users" < <[email protected]> >>>>> [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... > Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes directly on the brick or anything else as well? > > > > >> >> Thank you! >> >> > -- Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
