Hi, Could you please attach the vol files, log files and the output of gluster v info?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:37 PM, B.K.Raghuram <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Atin, >> >> Couple of quick questions about the upgrade and in general about the >> meaning of some of the parameters in the glusterd dir.. >> >> - I dont see the quota-version in the volume info file post upgrade, so >> did the upgrade not go through properly? >> > > If you are seeing a check sum issue you'd need to copy the same volume > info file to that node where the checksum went wrong and then restart > glusterd service. > And yes, this looks like a bug in quota. @Mani - time to chip in :) > > - What does the op-version in the volume info file mean? Does this have >> any corelation with the cluster op-version? Does it change with an upgrade? >> > > volume's op-version is different. This is basically used in checking > client's compatibility and it shouldn't change with an upgrade AFAIK and > remember from the code. > > >> - A more basic question - should all peer probes always be done from the >> same node or can they be done from any node that is already in the cluster? >> The reason I ask is when I tried to do what was said in >> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >> the initial cluster was initiated from node A with 5 other peers. Then post >> upgrade, node B which was in the cluster got a peer rejected. So I deleted >> all the files except glusterd.info and then did a peer probe of A from >> B. Then when I ran a peer status on A, it only showed one node, B. Should I >> have probed B from A instead? >> > > peer probe can be done from any node in the trusted storage pool. So > that's really not the issue. Ensure you keep all your peer file contents > through out the same (/var/lib/glusterd/peers) where as only self uuid > differs and then restarting glusterd service should solve the problem. > >> >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I am suspecting it to be new quota-version introduced in the volume info >>> file which may have resulted in a checksum mismatch resulting into >>> peer rejection. But we can confirm it from log files and respective info >>> file content. >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 23 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Unfortunately, the setup is at a customer's place which is not remotely >>>> accessible. Will try and get it by early next week. But could it just be a >>>> mismatch of the /var/lib/glusterd files? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Glusterd logs from all the nodes please? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 22 July 2016, B.K.Raghuram <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> When we upgrade some nodes from 3.6.1 to 3.7.13, some of the nodes >>>>>> give a peer status of "peer rejected" while some dont. Is there a reason >>>>>> for this discrepency and will the steps mentioned in >>>>>> http://gluster-documentations.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Resolving%20Peer%20Rejected/ >>>>>> work for this as well? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why the line "Try the whole procedure a couple >>>>>> more times if it doesn't work right away." in the link above? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Atin >>>>> Sent from iPhone >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Atin >>> Sent from iPhone >>> >> >> > > > -- > > --Atin > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -- Regards, Manikandan Selvaganesh.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
