On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Keith Freedman <freedman at freeformit.com> wrote: > At 11:00 PM 12/29/2008, Krishna Srinivas wrote: >> >> Keith, >> >> It was fixed in the sense, AFR will return stat of the same subvol >> everytime, before it used to return stat from one of the subvols. But >> still if the subvol-server clock is different than that of client, the >> time stamp will be of the server and not client. > > so, in the case where they both differ, how will we know which time will be > associated with a file? The first subvol mentioned in the list is considered, if it is down, then the next is considered. > and will it fix the on-disk stamp or just ignore it provided the other > subvol is online? It will not fix the time stamp if they differ. > > ideally, it will pick one, and make sure all the others are 'reset' to that > so that if the preferred vol goes offline, timestamps don't suddenly get > weird. True, but ideally all servers and clients should be time synced using ntp. For example if clients are not in sync, one of them might see time stamp of the future. > > as for the server times differing. I suppose it's possible, if so it's by > microseconds as they're both synced hourly to the universal clock via ntpd. > > >> Krishna >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Krishna Srinivas >> <krishna at zresearch.com> wrote: >> > Keith, >> > It was fixed in patch-804. >> > Krishna >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Keith Freedman >> > <freedman at freeformit.com> wrote: >> >> I have a problem with file mod times using AFR. >> >> >> >> this is really bad: >> >> server1# ls -al vfc017.jpg >> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 user1 group1 47660 2008-07-10 14:06 vfc017.jpg >> >> server1# ls -alu vfc017.jpg >> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 user1 group1 47660 2008-07-10 14:06 vfc017.jpg >> >> >> >> server2# ls -al vfc017.jpg >> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 user1 group1 47660 2008-12-23 09:25 vfc017.jpg >> >> server2# ls -alu vfc017.jpg >> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 user1 group1 47660 2008-12-29 15:55 vfc017.jpg >> >> >> >> so, there are programs and such which look for files modified after a >> >> certain date, and does stuff to them. >> >> if this is a web app, for example, and it hits the server with the >> >> newer date (the date AFR copied the file I presume?) then it thinks >> >> every single thing is new and does it's processing. >> >> >> >> Shouldn't AFR set the file mod and create times to that of the >> >> original source file? >> >> >> >> However, once it's in this state, I'm not sure how to fix it in an >> >> automated way, but hopefully there will be a patch so that this >> >> doesn't happen in the future. >> >> >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Gluster-users mailing list >> >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> >> http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> >> > > >
