Hi Krutika,
Do you need anymore information? Do let me know as i can try on my
test system. Thanks.
Cw
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:17 AM, qingwei wei <tchengwee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Krutika,
>
> You mean FIO command?
>
> Below is how i do the sequential write. This example i am using 400GB
> file, for the SHARD_MAX_INODE=16, i use 300MB file.
>
> fio -group_reporting -ioengine libaio -directory /mnt/testSF-HDD1
> -fallocate none -direct 1 -filesize 400g -nrfiles 1 -openfiles 1 -bs
> 256k -numjobs 1 -iodepth 2 -name test -rw write
>
> And after FIO complete the above workload, i do the random write
>
> fio -group_reporting -ioengine libaio -directory /mnt/testSF-HDD1
> -fallocate none -direct 1 -filesize 400g -nrfiles 1 -openfiles 1 -bs
> 8k -numjobs 1 -iodepth 2 -name test -rw randwrite
>
> The error (Sometimes segmentation fault) only happen during random write.
>
> The gluster volume is 3 replica volume with shard enable and 16MB
> shard block size.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cw
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Krutika Dhananjay <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I tried but couldn't recreate this issue (even with SHARD_MAX_INODES being
>> 16).
>> Could you share the exact command you used?
>>
>> -Krutika
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, qingwei wei <tchengwee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Krutika,
>>>
>>> Thanks. Looking forward to your reply.
>>>
>>> Cw
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Krutika Dhananjay <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > First of all, apologies for the late reply. Couldn't find time to look
>>> > into
>>> > this
>>> > until now.
>>> >
>>> > Changing SHARD_MAX_INODES value from 12384 to 16 is a cool trick!
>>> > Let me try that as well and get back to you in some time.
>>> >
>>> > -Krutika
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:07 AM, qingwei wei <tchengwee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> With the help from my colleague, we did some changes to the code with
>>> >> reduce number of SHARD_MAX_INODES (from 16384 to 16) and also include
>>> >> the printing of blk_num inside __shard_update_shards_inode_list. We
>>> >> then execute fio to first do sequential write of 300MB file. After
>>> >> this run completed, we then use fio to generate random write (8k). And
>>> >> during this random write run, we found that there is situation where
>>> >> the blk_num is negative number and this trigger the following
>>> >> assertion.
>>> >>
>>> >> GF_ASSERT (lru_inode_ctx->block_num > 0);
>>> >>
>>> >> [2016-12-08 03:16:34.217582] E
>>> >> [shard.c:468:__shard_update_shards_inode_list]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> (-->/usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_common_lookup_shards_cbk+0x2d)
>>> >> [0x7f7300930b6d]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -->/usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xce)
>>> >> [0x7f7300930b1e]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -->/usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x36b)
>>> >> [0x7f730092bf5b] ) 0-: Assertion failed: lru_inode_ctx->block_num > 0
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, there is segmentation fault shortly after this assertion and
>>> >> after that fio exit with error.
>>> >>
>>> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> patchset: git://git.gluster.com/glusterfs.git
>>> >> signal received: 11
>>> >> time of crash:
>>> >> 2016-12-08 03:16:34
>>> >> configuration details:
>>> >> argp 1
>>> >> backtrace 1
>>> >> dlfcn 1
>>> >> libpthread 1
>>> >> llistxattr 1
>>> >> setfsid 1
>>> >> spinlock 1
>>> >> epoll.h 1
>>> >> xattr.h 1
>>> >> st_atim.tv_nsec 1
>>> >> package-string: glusterfs 3.7.17
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libglusterfs.so.0(_gf_msg_backtrace_nomem+0x92)[0x7f730e900332]
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libglusterfs.so.0(gf_print_trace+0x2d5)[0x7f730e9250b5]
>>> >> /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x35670)[0x7f730d1f1670]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x1d4)[0x7f730092bdc4]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xce)[0x7f7300930b1e]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_common_lookup_shards_cbk+0x2d)[0x7f7300930b6d]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/cluster/distribute.so(dht_lookup_cbk+0x380)[0x7f7300b8e240]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/protocol/client.so(client3_3_lookup_cbk+0x769)[0x7f7300df4989]
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libgfrpc.so.0(rpc_clnt_handle_reply+0x90)[0x7f730e6ce010]
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libgfrpc.so.0(rpc_clnt_notify+0x1df)[0x7f730e6ce2ef]
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libgfrpc.so.0(rpc_transport_notify+0x23)[0x7f730e6ca483]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/rpc-transport/socket.so(+0x6344)[0x7f73034dc344]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/glusterfs/3.7.17/rpc-transport/socket.so(+0x8f44)[0x7f73034def44]
>>> >> /usr/local/lib/libglusterfs.so.0(+0x925aa)[0x7f730e96c5aa]
>>> >> /lib64/libpthread.so.0(+0x7dc5)[0x7f730d96ddc5]
>>> >>
>>> >> Core dump:
>>> >>
>>> >> Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
>>> >> Core was generated by `/usr/local/sbin/glusterfs
>>> >> --volfile-server=10.217.242.32 --volfile-id=/testSF1'.
>>> >> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
>>> >> #0 list_del_init (old=0x7f72f4003de0) at
>>> >> ../../../../libglusterfs/src/list.h:87
>>> >> 87 old->prev->next = old->next;
>>> >>
>>> >> bt
>>> >>
>>> >> #0 list_del_init (old=0x7f72f4003de0) at
>>> >> ../../../../libglusterfs/src/list.h:87
>>> >> #1 __shard_update_shards_inode_list
>>> >> (linked_inode=linked_inode@entry=0x7f72fa7a6e48,
>>> >> this=this@entry=0x7f72fc0090c0, base_inode=0x7f72fa7a5108,
>>> >> block_num=block_num@entry=10) at shard.c:469
>>> >> #2 0x00007f7300930b1e in shard_link_block_inode
>>> >> (local=local@entry=0x7f730ec4ed00, block_num=10, inode=<optimized
>>> >> out>,
>>> >> buf=buf@entry=0x7f730180c990) at shard.c:1559
>>> >> #3 0x00007f7300930b6d in shard_common_lookup_shards_cbk
>>> >> (frame=0x7f730c611204, cookie=<optimized out>, this=0x7f72fc0090c0,
>>> >> op_ret=0,
>>> >> op_errno=<optimized out>, inode=<optimized out>,
>>> >> buf=0x7f730180c990, xdata=0x7f730c029cdc, postparent=0x7f730180ca00)
>>> >> at shard.c:1596
>>> >> #4 0x00007f7300b8e240 in dht_lookup_cbk (frame=0x7f730c61dc40,
>>> >> cookie=<optimized out>, this=<optimized out>, op_ret=0, op_errno=22,
>>> >> inode=0x7f72fa7a6e48, stbuf=0x7f730180c990, xattr=0x7f730c029cdc,
>>> >> postparent=0x7f730180ca00) at dht-common.c:2362
>>> >> #5 0x00007f7300df4989 in client3_3_lookup_cbk (req=<optimized out>,
>>> >> iov=<optimized out>, count=<optimized out>, myframe=0x7f730c616ab4)
>>> >> at client-rpc-fops.c:2988
>>> >> #6 0x00007f730e6ce010 in rpc_clnt_handle_reply
>>> >> (clnt=clnt@entry=0x7f72fc04c040, pollin=pollin@entry=0x7f72fc079560)
>>> >> at rpc-clnt.c:796
>>> >> #7 0x00007f730e6ce2ef in rpc_clnt_notify (trans=<optimized out>,
>>> >> mydata=0x7f72fc04c070, event=<optimized out>, data=0x7f72fc079560)
>>> >> at rpc-clnt.c:967
>>> >> #8 0x00007f730e6ca483 in rpc_transport_notify
>>> >> (this=this@entry=0x7f72fc05bd30,
>>> >> event=event@entry=RPC_TRANSPORT_MSG_RECEIVED,
>>> >> data=data@entry=0x7f72fc079560) at rpc-transport.c:546
>>> >> #9 0x00007f73034dc344 in socket_event_poll_in
>>> >> (this=this@entry=0x7f72fc05bd30) at socket.c:2250
>>> >> #10 0x00007f73034def44 in socket_event_handler (fd=fd@entry=10,
>>> >> idx=idx@entry=2, data=0x7f72fc05bd30, poll_in=1, poll_out=0,
>>> >> poll_err=0)
>>> >> at socket.c:2363
>>> >> #11 0x00007f730e96c5aa in event_dispatch_epoll_handler
>>> >> (event=0x7f730180ced0, event_pool=0xf42ee0) at event-epoll.c:575
>>> >> #12 event_dispatch_epoll_worker (data=0xf8d650) at event-epoll.c:678
>>> >> #13 0x00007f730d96ddc5 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
>>> >> #14 0x00007f730d2b2ced in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6
>>> >>
>>> >> It seems like there is some situation where the structure is not
>>> >> intialized properly? Appreciate if anyone can advice. Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cw
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, qingwei wei <tchengwee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I did another test and this time FIO fails with
>>> >> >
>>> >> > fio: io_u error on file /mnt/testSF-HDD1/test: Invalid argument:
>>> >> > write
>>> >> > offset=114423242752, buflen=8192
>>> >> > fio: pid=10052, err=22/file:io_u.c:1582, func=io_u error,
>>> >> > error=Invalid
>>> >> > argument
>>> >> >
>>> >> > test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err=22 (file:io_u.c:1582, func=io_u error,
>>> >> > error=Invalid argument): pid=10052: Tue Dec 6 15:18:47 2016
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Below is the client log:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.261289] I [fuse-bridge.c:5171:fuse_graph_setup]
>>> >> > 0-fuse: switched to graph 0
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.261355] I [MSGID: 114035]
>>> >> > [client-handshake.c:193:client_set_lk_version_cbk]
>>> >> > 0-testSF-HDD-client-5: Server lk version = 1
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.261404] I [fuse-bridge.c:4083:fuse_init]
>>> >> > 0-glusterfs-fuse: FUSE inited with protocol versions: glusterfs 7.22
>>> >> > kernel 7.22
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.262901] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-0:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-1
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.262930] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-0:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-0
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.262948] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-0:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-2
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.269592] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-1:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-3
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.269795] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-1:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-4
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 05:19:31.277763] I [MSGID: 108031]
>>> >> > [afr-common.c:2071:afr_local_discovery_cbk] 0-testSF-HDD-replicate-1:
>>> >> > selecting local read_child testSF-HDD-client-5
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 06:58:05.399244] W [MSGID: 101159]
>>> >> > [inode.c:1219:__inode_unlink] 0-inode:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > be318638-e8a0-4c6d-977d-7a937aa84806/864c9ea1-3a7e-4d41-899b-f30604a7584e.16284:
>>> >> > dentry not found in 63af10b7-9dac-4a53-aab1-3cc17fff3255
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 15:17:43.311400] E
>>> >> > [shard.c:460:__shard_update_shards_inode_list]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (-->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_common_lookup_shards_cbk+0x2d)
>>> >> > [0x7f5575680fdd]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xdf)
>>> >> > [0x7f5575680f6f]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x22e)
>>> >> > [0x7f557567c1ce] ) 0-: Assertion failed: lru_inode_ctx->block_num > 0
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 15:17:43.311472] W [inode.c:1232:inode_unlink]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (-->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xdf)
>>> >> > [0x7f5575680f6f]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x14a)
>>> >> > [0x7f557567c0ea] -->/lib64/libglusterfs.so.0(inode_unlink+0x9c)
>>> >> > [0x7f558386ba0c] ) 0-testSF-HDD-shard: inode not found
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 15:17:43.333456] W [inode.c:1133:inode_forget]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (-->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xdf)
>>> >> > [0x7f5575680f6f]
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x154)
>>> >> > [0x7f557567c0f4] -->/lib64/libglusterfs.so.0(inode_forget+0x90)
>>> >> > [0x7f558386b800] ) 0-testSF-HDD-shard: inode not found
>>> >> > [2016-12-06 15:18:47.129794] W [fuse-bridge.c:2311:fuse_writev_cbk]
>>> >> > 0-glusterfs-fuse: 12555429: WRITE => -1
>>> >> > gfid=864c9ea1-3a7e-4d41-899b-f30604a7584e fd=0x7f557016ae6c (Invalid
>>> >> > argument)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Below is the code and it will go to the else block when inode_count
>>> >> > is
>>> >> > greater than SHARD_MAX_INODES which is 16384. And my dataset of 400GB
>>> >> > with 16MB shard size has enough shard file (400GB/16MB) to achieve
>>> >> > it.
>>> >> > When i do the test with smaller dataset, there is no such error.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > shard.c
>>> >> >
>>> >> > if (priv->inode_count + 1 <= SHARD_MAX_INODES) {
>>> >> > /* If this inode was linked here for the first time
>>> >> > (indicated
>>> >> > * by empty list), and if there is still space in the
>>> >> > priv list,
>>> >> > * add this ctx to the tail of the list.
>>> >> > */
>>> >> > gf_uuid_copy (ctx->base_gfid,
>>> >> > base_inode->gfid);
>>> >> > ctx->block_num = block_num;
>>> >> > list_add_tail (&ctx->ilist,
>>> >> > &priv->ilist_head);
>>> >> > priv->inode_count++;
>>> >> > } else {
>>> >> > /*If on the other hand there is no available slot for
>>> >> > this inode
>>> >> > * in the list, delete the lru inode from the head of
>>> >> > the list,
>>> >> > * unlink it. And in its place add this new inode
>>> >> > into
>>> >> > the list.
>>> >> > */
>>> >> > lru_inode_ctx = list_first_entry
>>> >> > (&priv->ilist_head,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > shard_inode_ctx_t,
>>> >> > ilist);
>>> >> > /* add in message for debug*/
>>> >> > gf_msg (THIS->name, GF_LOG_WARNING, 0,
>>> >> > SHARD_MSG_INVALID_FOP,
>>> >> > "block number = %d",
>>> >> > lru_inode_ctx->block_num);
>>> >> >
>>> >> > GF_ASSERT (lru_inode_ctx->block_num > 0);
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hopefully can get some advice from you guys on this. Thanks.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cw
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:07 AM, qingwei wei <tchengwee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Hi,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> This is the repost of my email in the gluster-user mailing list.
>>> >> >> Appreciate if anyone has any idea on the issue i have now. Thanks.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I encountered this when i do the FIO random write on the fuse mount
>>> >> >> gluster volume. After this assertion happen, the client log is
>>> >> >> filled
>>> >> >> with pending frames messages and FIO just show zero IO in the
>>> >> >> progress
>>> >> >> status. As i leave this test to run overnight, the client log file
>>> >> >> fill up with those pending frame messages and hit 28GB for around 12
>>> >> >> hours.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The client log:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [2016-12-04 15:48:35.274208] W [MSGID: 109072]
>>> >> >> [dht-linkfile.c:50:dht_linkfile_lookup_cbk] 0-testSF-dht: got
>>> >> >> non-linkfile
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> testSF-replicate-0:/.shard/21da7b64-45e5-4c6a-9244-53d0284bf7ed.7038,
>>> >> >> gfid = 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
>>> >> >> [2016-12-04 15:48:35.277208] W [MSGID: 109072]
>>> >> >> [dht-linkfile.c:50:dht_linkfile_lookup_cbk] 0-testSF-dht: got
>>> >> >> non-linkfile
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> testSF-replicate-0:/.shard/21da7b64-45e5-4c6a-9244-53d0284bf7ed.8957,
>>> >> >> gfid = 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
>>> >> >> [2016-12-04 15:48:35.277588] W [MSGID: 109072]
>>> >> >> [dht-linkfile.c:50:dht_linkfile_lookup_cbk] 0-testSF-dht: got
>>> >> >> non-linkfile
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> testSF-replicate-0:/.shard/21da7b64-45e5-4c6a-9244-53d0284bf7ed.11912,
>>> >> >> gfid = 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
>>> >> >> [2016-12-04 15:48:35.312751] E
>>> >> >> [shard.c:460:__shard_update_shards_inode_list]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> (-->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_common_lookup_shards_cbk+0x2d)
>>> >> >> [0x7f86cc42efdd]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(shard_link_block_inode+0xdf)
>>> >> >> [0x7f86cc42ef6f]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -->/usr/lib64/glusterfs/3.7.17/xlator/features/shard.so(__shard_update_shards_inode_list+0x22e)
>>> >> >> [0x7f86cc42a1ce] ) 0-: Assertion failed: lru_inode_ctx->block_num >
>>> >> >> 0
>>> >> >> pending frames:
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >> frame : type(0) op(0)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gluster info (i am testing this on one server with each disk
>>> >> >> representing one brick, this gluster volume is then mounted locally
>>> >> >> via fuse)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Volume Name: testSF
>>> >> >> Type: Distributed-Replicate
>>> >> >> Volume ID: 3f205363-5029-40d7-b1b5-216f9639b454
>>> >> >> Status: Started
>>> >> >> Number of Bricks: 2 x 3 = 6
>>> >> >> Transport-type: tcp
>>> >> >> Bricks:
>>> >> >> Brick1: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sdb_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Brick2: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sdc_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Brick3: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sdd_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Brick4: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sde_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Brick5: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sdf_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Brick6: 192.168.123.4:/mnt/sdg_mssd/testSF
>>> >> >> Options Reconfigured:
>>> >> >> features.shard-block-size: 16MB
>>> >> >> features.shard: on
>>> >> >> performance.readdir-ahead: on
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Gluster version: 3.7.17
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The actual disk usage (Is about 91% full):
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> /dev/sdb1 235G 202G 22G 91% /mnt/sdb_mssd
>>> >> >> /dev/sdc1 235G 202G 22G 91% /mnt/sdc_mssd
>>> >> >> /dev/sdd1 235G 202G 22G 91% /mnt/sdd_mssd
>>> >> >> /dev/sde1 235G 200G 23G 90% /mnt/sde_mssd
>>> >> >> /dev/sdf1 235G 200G 23G 90% /mnt/sdf_mssd
>>> >> >> /dev/sdg1 235G 200G 23G 90% /mnt/sdg_mssd
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Anyone encounter this issue before?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Cw
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
