Thanks for taking care of this so fast. Yes, I'm getting broken object. I haven't checked this on other versions but is this bug present only in Hammer or in all versions? W dniu 12.06.2015 o 21:43, Gregory Farnum pisze: > Okay, Sam thinks he knows what's going on; here's a ticket: > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12000 > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Paweł Sadowski <ceph@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I'm testing erasure coded pools. Is there any protection from bit-rot >>> errors on object read? If I modify one bit in object part (directly on >>> OSD) I'm getting *broken*object: >> Sorry, are you saying that you're getting a broken object if you flip >> a bit in an EC pool? That should detect the chunk as invalid and >> reconstruct on read... >> -Greg >> >>> mon-01:~ # rados --pool ecpool get `hostname -f`_16 - | md5sum >>> bb2d82bbb95be6b9a039d135cc7a5d0d - >>> >>> # modify one bit directly on OSD >>> >>> mon-01:~ # rados --pool ecpool get `hostname -f`_16 - | md5sum >>> 02f04f590010b4b0e6af4741c4097b4f - >>> >>> # restore bit to original value >>> >>> mon-01:~ # rados --pool ecpool get `hostname -f`_16 - | md5sum >>> bb2d82bbb95be6b9a039d135cc7a5d0d - >>> >>> If I run deep-scrub on modified bit I'm getting inconsistent PG which is >>> correct in this case. After restoring bit and running deep-scrub again >>> all PGs are clean. >>> >>> >>> [ceph version 0.94.1 (e4bfad3a3c51054df7e537a724c8d0bf9be972ff)] -- PS _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |