Not sure if you're asking your questions precisely enough. The clues may be in your inclusions, but I'm not going to read all that to figure it out so I'll ask directly: > Short description of my test > ---------------------------- > * 4 replicas on single machine > * glusterfs mounted locally > * Create file on glusterfs-mounted directory: date >data.txt Did you write it through a gluster (or nfs) mount of the gluster file system, or sneak around behind it with a direct local mount of the partition? > * Append to file on one of the bricks: hostname >>data.txt Again, through a gluster/nfs mount, or a local mount? > * Trigger a self-heal with: stat data.txt Again, stat'ing it on a gluster/nfs mount, or a local mount? > => Modified file on the brick is still different from the three > other bricks. Again ... well you know. > Q1: Is the modified file supposed to get corrected in my case? > > Q2: Is my test-case invalid for what gluster is supposed to handle? If you're writing to files through mounts which gluster isn't handling, you'll get inconsistent stuff. Eventually gluster should catch up. But by design you should do everything through gluster. (An exception may be if you want a faster local file read ... anything that writes or touches the file should be through gluster in any case.) Best, Whit
