The scenario is actually a bit different, see: Let's assume size=2, min_size=1 -We are looking at pg "A" acting [1, 2] -osd 1 goes down -osd 2 accepts a write for pg "A" -osd 2 goes down -osd 1 comes back up, while osd 2 still down -osd 1 has no way to know osd 2 accepted a write in pg "A" -osd 1 accepts a new write to pg "A" -osd 2 comes back up. bang! osd 1 and 2 now have different views of pg "A" but both claim to have current data. -K. On 2017-11-01 20:27, Denes Dolhay wrote: > Hello, > > I have a trick question for Mr. Turner's scenario: > Let's assume size=2, min_size=1 > -We are looking at pg "A" acting [1, 2] > -osd 1 goes down, OK > -osd 1 comes back up, backfill of pg "A" commences from osd 2 to osd 1, OK > -osd 2 goes down (and therefore pg "A" 's backfill to osd 1 is > incomplete and stopped) not OK, but this is the case... > --> In this event, why does osd 1 accept IO to pg "A" knowing full well, > that it's data is outdated and will cause an inconsistent state? > Wouldn't it be prudent to deny io to pg "A" until either > -osd 2 comes back (therefore we have a clean osd in the acting group) > ... backfill would continue to osd 1 of course > -or data in pg "A" is manually marked as lost, and then continues > operation from osd 1 's (outdated) copy? _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |