This sounds like something we need to post to community.gluster.org - Avati, can you do the honors? -JM ----- Original Message ----- > The current behavior is intentional. There have been far too many > instances where users delete a volume, but fail to understand that > those brick directories still contain their data (and all the > associated book-keeping metadata like self-heal pending changelogs, > partial dht hash ranges etc.) -- and will not be happy when they > find that the newly created volume using those stale brick > directories start misbehaving. This typically happens when a user is > trying out gluster for the first time (where volume creation and > deletion is frequent, while trying to get a hang of things) and > result in an ugly first experience. > For all you know, you yourself might have possibly ended in a > situation where you could have created a new volume with all the > staleness (like the hidden .glusterfs directory as well) from the > previous volume silently carried over and cause unintended behavior. > The way I see it, your email report is a positive result of the > stale brick check having served its purpose :-) > Avati > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Lonni J Friedman < > netllama at gmail.com > wrote: > > Hrmm, ok. Shouldn't 'gluster volume delete ...' be smart enough to > > > clean this up so that I don't have to do it manually? Or > > > alternatively, 'gluster volume create ...' should be able to figure > > > out whether the path to a brick is really in use? > > > As things stand now, the process is rather hacky when I have to > > issue > > > the 'gluster volume delete ...' command, then manually clean up > > > afterwards. Hopefully this is something that will be addressed in a > > > future release? > > > thanks > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Kaleb Keithley < > > kkeithle at redhat.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > There are xattrs on the top-level directory of the old brick > > > volume > > > that gluster is detecting causing this. > > > > > > > > I personally always create my bricks on a subdir. If you do that > > > you can simply rmdir/mkdir the directory when you want to delete > > > a > > > gluster volume. > > > > > > > > You can clear the xattrs or "nuke it from orbit" with mkfs on the > > > volume device. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Lonni J Friedman" < netllama at gmail.com > > > > > To: gluster-users at gluster.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:03:35 PM > > > > Subject: cannot create a new volume with a brick > > > that used to be part of a deleted volume? > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > I'm running v3.3.0 on Fedora16-x86_64. I used to have a > > > replicated > > > > volume on two bricks. This morning I deleted it successfully: > > > > ######## > > > > [root at farm-ljf0 ~]# gluster volume stop gv0 > > > > Stopping volume will make its data inaccessible. Do you want to > > > > continue? (y/n) y > > > > Stopping volume gv0 has been successful > > > > [root at farm-ljf0 ~]# gluster volume delete gv0 > > > > Deleting volume will erase all information about the volume. Do > > > you > > > > want to continue? (y/n) y > > > > Deleting volume gv0 has been successful > > > > [root at farm-ljf0 ~]# gluster volume info all > > > > No volumes present > > > > ######## > > > > > > > > I then attempted to create a new volume using the same bricks > > > that > > > > used to be part of the (now) deleted volume, but it keeps > > > refusing > > > & > > > > failing claiming that the brick is already part of a volume: > > > > ######## > > > > [root at farm-ljf1 ~]# gluster volume create gv0 rep 2 transport tcp > > > > 10.31.99.165:/mnt/sdb1 10.31.99.166:/mnt/sdb1 > > > > /mnt/sdb1 or a prefix of it is already part of a volume > > > > [root at farm-ljf1 ~]# gluster volume info all > > > > No volumes present > > > > ######## > > > > > > > > Note farm-ljf0 is 10.31.99.165 and farm-ljf1 is 10.31.99.166. I > > > also > > > > tried restarting glusterd (and glusterfsd) hoping that might > > > clear > > > > things up, but it had no impact. > > > > > > > > How can /mnt/sdb1 be part of a volume when there are no volumes > > > present? > > > > Is this a bug, or am I just missing something obvious? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gluster-users mailing list > > > Gluster-users at gluster.org > > > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120919/425e1c7e/attachment.htm>
