I completely agree that we should not have to kill (never -9 as
this will cause the clients to wait for ping-timeout) brick
processes directly. There should be a cli command to stop an
individual brick.
The "Today" method should be corrected as follows:
1. ssh root@node-1
2. kill $(gluster volume status example-vol | awk '/srv.brick-02.brick.0/{print $3}')
3. # replace physical disk
4. remount /srv/brick-02
5. gluster volume start example-vol force # no replace-brick necessary
6. gluster volume heal example-vol full
I'd love to see step 2 replaced with
gluster volume stop example-vol node-1:/srv/brick-02/brick.0
This command should gracefully stop the brick, closing tcp
connections. It should fail if there are pending-heals with that
brick as the source unless you add the "force" keyword at the end.
This would turn your hypothetical example into
1. ssh root@node-1
2. gluster volume stop example-vol node-1:/srv/brick-02/brick.0
3. # replace physical disk
4. remount /srv/brick-02
5. gluster volume start example-vol force
6. gluster volume heal example-vol full
On 03/18/2016 08:11 AM, Peter
Portante wrote:
gist included for completeness:
> I like where this is going. Perhaps we could consider the steps an
> admin has to take and orient the commands to address what they need
> to do.
>
> First, having to "kill -9" a process as an interface to stopping a
> brick seems dicey.
>
> So to that end, perhaps we could two sets of commands, the first to
> tell gluster to take the brick out of service, allowing the admin
> to then replace it, and a second command to brick the brick back
> into service.
>
> For example:
>
> gluster volume name: example-vol
> 6 node cluster, each member providing 12 bricks, three way replicated, distributed
> members are named node-0 ... node-5
> disks are named /srv/brick-00/brick.0 .. /srv/brick-11/brick.0
>
> Lets say the disk for /srv/brick-02/brick.0 on node-1 goes bad.
>
> Today I believe I have to:
>
> 1. ssh root@node-1
> 2. kill -9 $(gluster volume status | grep /srv/brick-02/brick | awk '{print $3}')
> 3. # replace physical disk
> 4. remount /srv/brick-02
> 5. mkdir /srv/brick-02/brick.1
> 6. # on a FUSE mnt, do the directory dance and the xattr dance
> 7. # ensure other node brick trusted IDs for healing are correct
> 8. gluster volume replace-brick example-vol node-1:/srv/brick-02/brick.0 node-1:/srv/brick-02/brick.1 commit force
>
> Perhaps we could do the following instead:
>
> 1. ssh root@node-1
> 2. gluster volume replace-brick example-vol node-1:/srv/brick-02/brick.0 offline
> 3. # replace physical disk
> 4. remount /srv/brick-02
> 5. mkdir /srv/brick-02/brick.0
> 6. gluster volume replace-brick example-vol node-1:/srv/brock-02/brick.0 online
>
> Then the new step #6 would take care of the old steps #6 & #7. We
> would lose the "kill -9" and replace with a declaration of
> intention command that tells gluster to "take this brick off line,
> stopping the brick process, and removing references to the mount
> point".
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Please excuse my ignorance of the ins-and-outs of gluster commands
> if I have the above steps off a bit.
What do folks think of such
a proposal?
Thanks!
-peter
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
