On 09/30/2013 09:25 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Hi I tested 3.4.1 on a long run ang got a spurious split brain with all-null pending matrix again: [2013-09-30 00:25:12.962127] E [afr-self-heal-common.c:197:afr_sh_print_split_brain_log] 0-gfs341-replicate-1: Unable to self-heal contents of '/manu/netbsd/usr/src/lib/libpuffs/obj/dispatcher.pico' (possible split-brain). Please delete the file from all but the preferred subvolume.- Pending matrix: [ [ 0 0 ] [ 0 0 ] ] The bug is described with log files here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005526 We previously thought that it was caused by heterogeneous setup (i386 + amd64), but it is not the case in my latest test. The only known workaround so far is to disable eager locks. The split brain is real, as shown below. What I do not really understand is why I have 4 copies of the file, as this is a 2x2 stripped-replicated volume. The first set of replicas are fine, the second set has two file filled with zeros, one wih correct size, the other being truncated. silo:/export/wd2a/manu/netbsd/usr/src/lib/libpuffs/obj/dispatcher.pico -rw-r--r-- 2 manu manu 11916 Sep 30 02:23 dispatcher.pico SHA1(dispatcher.pico) = b512c2924194ab9d001aec402ef037225f9a6e6d hangar:/export/wd1a/manu/netbsd/usr/src/lib/libpuffs/obj/dispatcher.pico -rw-r--r-- 2 manu manu 11916 Sep 30 02:23 dispatcher.pico SHA1(dispatcher.pico) = b512c2924194ab9d001aec402ef037225f9a6e6d hangar:/export/wd3a/manu/netbsd/usr/src/lib/libpuffs/obj/dispatcher.pico -rw-r--r-- 2 manu manu 11916 Sep 30 02:23 dispatcher.pico SHA1(dispatcher.pico) = 3bdf1048eff02260594f7385449dcc37bd09b78f NB: filled with zeroes debacle:/export/wd1a/manu/netbsd/usr/src/lib/libpuffs/obj/dispatcher.pico -rw-r--r-- 2 manu manu 11049 Sep 30 02:23 dispatcher.pico SHA1(dispatcher.pico) = 5357efe9fa5299b59a279b32ce804767c6ffc116 NB: filled with zeroes Is it possible to have the same file on different stripes in other situations than during a rename operation?
I guess the solution to these issues is in the works : http://review.gluster.org/6010
Would advise to run the first qa bits from 3.5.0 branch :-) Regards, Amar
