13.07.2016 09:26, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    13.07.2016 09:16, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


    On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        13.07.2016 09:04, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


        On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Dmitry Melekhov
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            13.07.2016 08:56, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:


            On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov
            <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <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...


            Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with?
            Making changes directly on the brick or anything else
            as well?

            I'll repeat:
            As I already said- if I for some reason ( real case  can
            be only by accident ) will delete file this will not be
            detected by self-heal daemon, and, thus, will lead to
            lower replication level, i.e. lower failure tolerance.


        To prevent such accidents you need to set selinux policies
        so that files under the brick are not modified by accident
        by any user. At least that is the solution I remember when
        this was discussed 3-4 years back.

        So only supported platfrom is linux? Or, may be, it is better
        to improve self-healing to detect missing or wrong length
        files, I guess this is very low cost in terms of host
        resources operation.
        Just a suggestion, may be we need to look to alternatives in
        near future....

    This is a corner case, from design perspective it is generally
    not a good idea to optimize for the corner case. It is better to
    protect ourselves from the corner case (SElinux etc) or you can
    also use snapshots to protect against these kind of mishaps.

    Sorry, I'm not agree.
    As you  know if on access missed or wrong lenghted file from fuse
    client it is restored (healed), i.e. gluster recognizes file is
    wrong and heal it , so I do not see any reason to provide this
    such function as self-healing.
    Thank you!

Ah! Now how do you suggest we keep track of which of 10s of millions of files the user accidentally deleted from the brick without gluster's knowledge? Once it comes to gluster's knowledge we can do something. But how does gluster become aware of something it is not keeping track of? At the time you access it gluster knows something went wrong so it restores it. If you change something on the bricks even by accident all the data gluster keeps (similar to journal) is a waste. Even the disk filesystems will ask you to do fsck if something unexpected happens so full self-heal is similar operation.

You are absolutely right- question is why gluster does not become aware about such problem is case of self-healing?



--
Pranith

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

Reply via email to