From: "Emmanuel Dreyfus" <manu@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ravishankar N" <ravishankar@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 10:14:22 AM
Subject: Re: question on glustershdRavishankar N <ravishankar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> afr_shd_full_healer() is run only when we run 'gluster vol heal <volname>
> full`, doing a full brick traversal (readdirp) from the root and
> attempting heal for each entry.Then we agree that "gluster vol heal $volume full" may fail to heal some
files because of inode lock contention, right?If that is expected behavior, then the tests are wrong. For instance in
tests/basic/afr/entry-self-heal.t we do "gluster vol heal $volume full"
and we check that no unhealed files are left behind.Did I miss something, or do we have to either fix afr_shd_full_healer()
or tests/basic/afr/entry-self-heal.t ?
Typical use of "heal full" is in the event of a disk replacement where one of the bricks in the replica set is totally empty.
And in a volume where both (assuming 2 way replication to keep the discussion simple) children of AFR are on the same node, SHD would launch two healers.
Each healer does readdirp() only on the brick associated with it (see how @subvol is initialised in afr_shd_full_sweep()).
I guess in such scenarios, the healer associated with the brick that was empty would have no entries to read, and as a result, nothing to heal from it to the other brick.
In that case, there is no question of lock contention of the kind that you explained above?
-Krutika
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
