DHT developers,
We introduced a non-blocking lock prior to a rename operation in dht and
fail the rename if the lock acquisition is not successful with 3.6. I
ran into an user in IRC yesterday who is affected by this behavior change:
"We're seeing a behavior in Gluster 3.7.x that we did not see in 3.4.x
and we're not sure how to fix it. When multiple processes are attempting
to rename a file to the same destination at once, we're now seeing
"Device or resource busy" and "Stale file handle" errors. Here's the
command to replicate it: cd /mnt/glustermount; while true; do
FILE=$RANDOM; touch $FILE; mv $FILE file-fv; done. The above command
would be ran on two or three servers within the same gluster cluster. In
the output, one would always be sucessfull in the rename, while the 2
other ones would fail with the above error."
The use case for concurrent renames was described as:
"we generate files and push them to the gluster cluster. Some are
generated multiple times and end up being pushed to the cluster at the
same time by different data generators; resulting in the 'rename
collision'. We use also the cluster.extra-hash-regex to make sure the
data is written in place. And this does the rename."
Is a non-blocking lock essential? Can we not use a blocking lock instead
of a non-blocking lock or fallback to a blocking lock if the original
non-blocking lock acquisition fails?
Thanks,
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
