Re: Hundreds of duplicate files

[Olav Peeters <opeeters@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joe,
I tried deleting both 0-bit versions of one of the dublicated file, like so:

[root@gluster01 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster03 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417


[root@gluster01 ~]# rm -f /export/brick14gfs01/.glusterfs/ae/fd/aefd1845-0841-4a8f-8408-f1ab8aa7a417 /export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
[root@gluster03 ~]# rm -f /export/brick14gfs03/.glusterfs/ae/fd/aefd1845-0841-4a8f-8408-f1ab8aa7a417 /export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

An "ls" showed that this was successful..

10 minutes later these deleted files are back (presumably after a self-heal had passed):
[root@gluster01 ~]# find /export/*/27* -size 0 -name '3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72*' -exec ls -la {} \;
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
Notice how the last modification date is the same as the deleted files (the moment I rebooted the machines and the duplication-misery was triggered). Do you have any idea what this means?


About you blog (http://joejulian.name/blog/dht-misses-are-expensive/), I don't quiet understand how I can use the hash:
[root@gluster01 ~]# python gf_dm_hash.py 3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
0x2b3634edL
.. to locate/identify the good replica pair of that file. I also still have these versions (with actual data):

[root@gluster01 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x756e636f6e66696e65645f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000010000000100000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster02 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster02 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick15gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick15gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-40=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-41=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster03 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-40=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-41=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

My bet would be that I can delete the first two of these files.
For the rest they look identical:

[root@gluster01 ~]# ls -al /export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

[root@gluster02 ~]# ls -al /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

[root@gluster02 ~]# ls -al /export/brick15gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick15gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

[root@gluster03 ~]# ls -al /export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

Cheers,
Olav




On 21/02/15 01:37, Olav Peeters wrote:

It look even worse than I had feared.. :-(
This really is a crazy bug.

If I understand you correctly, the only sane pairing of the xattrs is of the two 0-bit files, since this is the full list of bricks:

root@gluster01 ~]# gluster volume info

Volume Name: sr_vol01
Type: Distributed-Replicate
Volume ID: c6d6147e-2d91-4d98-b8d9-ba05ec7e4ad6
Status: Started
Number of Bricks: 21 x 2 = 42
Transport-type: tcp
Bricks:
Brick1: gluster01:/export/brick1gfs01
Brick2: gluster02:/export/brick1gfs02
Brick3: gluster01:/export/brick4gfs01
Brick4: gluster03:/export/brick4gfs03
Brick5: gluster02:/export/brick4gfs02
Brick6: gluster03:/export/brick1gfs03
Brick7: gluster01:/export/brick2gfs01
Brick8: gluster02:/export/brick2gfs02
Brick9: gluster01:/export/brick5gfs01
Brick10: gluster03:/export/brick5gfs03
Brick11: gluster02:/export/brick5gfs02
Brick12: gluster03:/export/brick2gfs03
Brick13: gluster01:/export/brick3gfs01
Brick14: gluster02:/export/brick3gfs02
Brick15: gluster01:/export/brick6gfs01
Brick16: gluster03:/export/brick6gfs03
Brick17: gluster02:/export/brick6gfs02
Brick18: gluster03:/export/brick3gfs03
Brick19: gluster01:/export/brick8gfs01
Brick20: gluster02:/export/brick8gfs02
Brick21: gluster01:/export/brick9gfs01
Brick22: gluster02:/export/brick9gfs02
Brick23: gluster01:/export/brick10gfs01
Brick24: gluster03:/export/brick10gfs03
Brick25: gluster01:/export/brick11gfs01
Brick26: gluster03:/export/brick11gfs03
Brick27: gluster02:/export/brick10gfs02
Brick28: gluster03:/export/brick8gfs03
Brick29: gluster02:/export/brick11gfs02
Brick30: gluster03:/export/brick9gfs03
Brick31: gluster01:/export/brick12gfs01
Brick32: gluster02:/export/brick12gfs02
Brick33: gluster01:/export/brick13gfs01
Brick34: gluster02:/export/brick13gfs02
Brick35: gluster01:/export/brick14gfs01
Brick36: gluster03:/export/brick14gfs03
Brick37: gluster01:/export/brick15gfs01
Brick38: gluster03:/export/brick15gfs03
Brick39: gluster02:/export/brick14gfs02
Brick40: gluster03:/export/brick12gfs03
Brick41: gluster02:/export/brick15gfs02
Brick42: gluster03:/export/brick13gfs03


The two 0-bit files are on brick 35 and 36 as the getfattr correctly lists.

Another sane pairing could be this (if the first file did not also refer to client-34 and client-35):

[root@gluster01 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x756e636f6e66696e65645f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000010000000100000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster02 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

But why is the security.selinux hash different?


You mention hostname changes..
I noticed that if I do a listing of available shared storages on one of the XenServer I get:
uuid ( RO)                : 272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3
          name-label ( RW): gluster_store
    name-description ( RW): NFS SR [gluster01.irceline.be:/sr_vol01]
                host ( RO): <shared>
                type ( RO): nfs
        content-type ( RO):


if I do normal general linux:
[root@same_story_on_both_xenserver ~]# mount
gluster02.irceline.be:/sr_vol01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3 on /var/run/sr-mount/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3 type nfs (rw,soft,timeo=133,retrans=2147483647,tcp,noac,addr=192.168.0.72)

Originally the mount was done on gluster01 (ip 192.168.0.71) as the name-description of the xe sr-list indicates..
It is as though when gluster01 was not available for a couple of minutes, the NFS mount internally was somehow automatically reconfigured to gluster02, but NFS cannot do this as far as I know (unless there is some fail-over mechanism - I never configured this). There also is no load-balancing between client and server.
If gluster01 is not available, the gluster volume should not have been available, end of story.. But from perspective of a client the NFS could be to any one of the three gluster nodes. The client should see exactly the same data..

So a rebalance in the current state could do more harm than good?
I launched a second rebalance in the hope that the system would mend itself after all...

Thanks a million for your support in this darkest hour of my time as a glusterfs user :-)

Cheers,
Olav

On 20/02/15 23:10, Joe Julian wrote:

On 02/20/2015 01:47 PM, Olav Peeters wrote:

Thanks Joe,
for the answers!

I was not clear enough about the set up apparently.
The Gluster cluster consist of 3 nodes with each 14 bricks. The bricks are formatted as xfs, mounted locally as xfs. There is one volume, type: Distributed-Replicate (replica 2). The configuration is so that bricks are mirrored on two different nodes.

The NFS mount which was alive but not used during reboot when the problem started are from clients (2 XenServer machines configured as a pool - a shared storage set-up). The comparisons I give below are between (other) clients mounting via either glusterfs or NFS. Similar problem with the exception that the first listing (via ls) after a fresh mount via NFS actually does find the files with data. A second listing only finds the 0 bit file with the same name.

So all the 0bit files in mode 0644 can be safely removed?

Probably? Is it likely that you have any empty files? I don't know.

Why do I see three files with the same name (and modification timestamp etc.) via either a glusterfs or NFS mount from a client? Deleting one of the three will probably not solve the issue either.. this seems to me an indexing issue in the gluster cluster.

Very good question. I don't know. The xattrs tell a strange story that I haven't seen before. One legit file shows sr_vol01-client-32 and 33. This would be normal, assuming the filename hash would put it on that replica pair (we can't tell since the rebalance has changed the hash map). Another file shows sr_vol01-client-32, 33, 34, and 35 with pending updates scheduled for 35. I have no idea which brick this is (see "gluster volume info" and map the digits (35) with the bricks offset by 1 (client-35 is brick 36). That last one is on 40,41.

I don't know how these files all got on different replica sets. My speculations include hostname changes, long-running net-split conditions with different dht maps (failed rebalances), moved bricks, load balancers between client and server, mercury in retrograde (lol)...

How do I get Gluster to replicate the files correctly, only 2 versions of the same file, not three, and on two bricks on different machines?

Identify which replica is correct by using the little python script at http://joejulian.name/blog/dht-misses-are-expensive/ to get the hash of the filename. Examine the dht map to see which replica pair *should* have that hash and remove the others (and their hardlink in .glusterfs). There is no 1-liner that's going to do this. I would probably script the logic in python, have it print out what it was going to do, check that for sanity and, if sane, execute it.

But mostly figure out how Bricks 32 and/or 33 can become 34 and/or 35 and/or 40 and/or 41. That's the root of the whole problem.

Cheers,
Olav




On 20/02/15 21:51, Joe Julian wrote:

On 02/20/2015 12:21 PM, Olav Peeters wrote:

Let's take one file (3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd) as an example...
On the 3 nodes where all bricks are formatted as XFS and mounted in /export and 272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3 is the mounting point of a NFS shared storage connection from XenServer machines:

Did I just read this correctly? Your bricks are NFS mounts? ie, GlusterFS Client <-> GlusterFS Server <-> NFS <-> XFS

[root@gluster01 ~]# find /export/*/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/ -name '300*' -exec ls -la {} \;
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

Supposedly, this is the actual file.

-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

This is not a linkfile. Note it's mode 0644. How it got there with those permissions would be a matter of history and would require information that's probably lost.

root@gluster02 ~]# find /export/*/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/ -name '300*' -exec ls -la {} \;
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

[root@gluster03 ~]# find /export/*/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/ -name '300*' -exec ls -la {} \;
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 2 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

Same analysis as above.

3 files with information, 2 x a 0-bit file with the same name

Checking the 0-bit files:
[root@gluster01 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick14gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster03 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick14gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

This is not a glusterfs link file since there is no "trusted.glusterfs.dht.linkto", am I correct?

You are correct.

And checking the "good" files:

# file: export/brick13gfs01/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x756e636f6e66696e65645f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-34=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-35=0x000000010000000100000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster02 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs02/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-32=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-33=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417

[root@gluster03 ~]# getfattr -m . -d -e hex /export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: export/brick13gfs03/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
security.selinux=0x73797374656d5f753a6f626a6563745f723a66696c655f743a733000
trusted.afr.dirty=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-40=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.afr.sr_vol01-client-41=0x000000000000000000000000
trusted.gfid=0xaefd184508414a8f8408f1ab8aa7a417



Seen from a client via a glusterfs mount:
[root@client ~]# ls -al /mnt/glusterfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/300*
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/glusterfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/glusterfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/glusterfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd



Via NFS (just after performing a umount and mount the volume again):
[root@client ~]# ls -al /mnt/nfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/300*                                    
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 44332659200 Feb 17 23:55 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

Doing the same list a couple of seconds later:
[root@client ~]# ls -al /mnt/nfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/300*
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
And again, and again, and again:
[root@client ~]# ls -al /mnt/nfs/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/300*
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Feb 18 00:51 /mnt/test/272b2366-dfbf-ad47-2a0f-5d5cc40863e3/3009f448-cf6e-413f-baec-c3b9f0cf9d72.vhd

This really seems odd. Why do we get to see "real data file" once only?

It seems more and more that this crazy file duplication (and writing of sticky bit files) was actually triggered when rebooting one of the three nodes while there still is an active (even when there is no data exchange at all) NFS connection, since all 0-bit files (of the non Sticky bit type) were either created at 00:51 or 00:41, the exact moment one of the three nodes in the cluster were rebooted. This would mean that replication currently with GlusterFS creates hardly any redundancy. Quiet the opposite, if one of the machines goes down, all of your data seriously gets disorganised. I am buzzy configuring a test installation to see how this can be best reproduced for a bug report..

Does anyone have a suggestion how to best get rid of the duplicates, or rather get this mess organised the way it should be?
This is a cluster with millions of files. A rebalance does not fix the issue, neither does a rebalance fix-layout help. Since this is a replicated volume all files should be their 2x, not 3x. Can I safely just remove all the 0 bit files outside of the .glusterfs directory including the sticky bit files?

The empty 0 bit files outside of .glusterfs on every brick I can probably safely removed like this:
find /export/* -path */.glusterfs -prune -o -type f -size 0 -perm 1000 -exec rm {} \;
not?

Thanks!

Cheers,
Olav
On 18/02/15 22:10, Olav Peeters wrote:

Thanks Tom and Joe,
for the fast response!

Before I started my upgrade I stopped all clients using the volume and stopped all VM's with VHD on the volume, but I guess, and this may be the missing thing to reproduce this in a lab, I did not detach a NFS shared storage mount from a XenServer pool to this volume, since this is an extremely risky business. I also did not stop the volume. This I guess was a bit stupid, but since I did upgrades in the past this way without any issues I skipped this step (a really bad habit). I'll make amends and file a proper bug report :-). I agree with you Joe, this should never happen, even when someone ignores the advice of stopping the volume. If it would also be nessessary to detach shared storage NFS connections to a volume, than franky, glusterfs is unusable in a private cloud. No one can afford downtime of the whole infrastructure just for a glusterfs upgrade. Ideally a replicated gluster volume should even be able to remain online and used during (at least a minor version) upgrade.

I don't know whether a heal was maybe buzzy when I started the upgrade. I forgot to check. I did check the CPU activity on the gluster nodes which were very low (in the 0.0X range via top), so I doubt it. I will add this to the bug report as a suggestion should they not be able to reproduce with an open NFS connection.

By the way, is it sufficient to do:
service glusterd stop
service glusterfsd stop
and do a:
ps aux | gluster*
to see if everything has stopped and kill any leftovers should this be necessary?

For the fix, do you agree that if I run e.g.:
find /export/* -type f -size 0 -perm 1000 -exec /bin/rm {} \;
on every node if /export is the location of all my bricks, also in a replicated set-up, this will be save?
No necessary 0bit files will be deleted in e.g. the .glusterfs of every brick?

Thanks for your support!

Cheers,
Olav





On 18/02/15 20:51, Joe Julian wrote:

On 02/18/2015 11:43 AM, tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hi Olav,

I have a hunch that our problem was caused by improper unmounting of the gluster volume, and have since found that the proper order should be: kill all jobs using volume -> unmount volume on clients -> gluster volume stop -> stop gluster service (if necessary)

 

In my case, I wrote a Python script to find duplicate files on the mounted volume, then delete the corresponding link files on the bricks (making sure to also delete files in the .glusterfs directory)

 

However, your find command was also suggested to me and I think it's a simpler solution. I believe removing all link files (even ones that are not causing duplicates) is fine since the next file access gluster will do a lookup on all bricks and recreate any link files if necessary. Hopefully a gluster expert can chime in on this point as I'm not completely sure.

You are correct.

 

Keep in mind your setup is somewhat different than mine as I have only 5 bricks with no replication.

 

Regards,

Tom

 

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: Hundreds of duplicate files
From: "Olav Peeters" <opeeters@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/18/15 10:52 am
To: gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx, tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi all,
I'm have this problem after upgrading from 3.5.3 to 3.6.2.
At the moment I am still waiting for a heal to finish (on a 31TB volume with 42 bricks, replicated over three nodes).

Tom,
how did you remove the duplicates?
with 42 bricks I will not be able to do this manually..
Did a:
find $brick_root -type f -size 0 -perm 1000 -exec /bin/rm {} \;
work for you?

Should this type of thing ideally not be checked and mended by a heal?

Does anyone have an idea yet how this happens in the first place? Can it be connected to upgrading?

Cheers,
Olav

On 01/01/15 03:07, tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

No, the files can be read on a newly mounted client! I went ahead and deleted all of the link files associated with these duplicates, and then remounted the volume. The problem is fixed!

Thanks again for the help, Joe and Vijay.

 

Tom

 

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: Hundreds of duplicate files
From: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/28/14 3:23 am
To: tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

On 12/28/2014 01:20 PM, tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
> Yes the files are still readable from the .glusterfs path.
> There is no explicit error. However, trying to read a text file in
> python simply gives me null characters:
>
> >>> open('ott_mf_itab').readlines()
> ['\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00']
>
> And reading binary files does the same
>

Is this behavior seen with a freshly mounted client too?

-Vijay

> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: Hundreds of duplicate files
> From: "Vijay Bellur" <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 12/27/14 9:57 pm
> To: tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On 12/28/2014 10:13 AM, tbenzvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Thanks Joe, I've read your blog post as well as your post
> regarding the
> > .glusterfs directory.
> > I found some unneeded duplicate files which were not being read
> > properly. I then deleted the link file from the brick. This always
> > removes the duplicate file from the listing, but the file does not
> > always become readable. If I also delete the associated file in the
> > .glusterfs directory on that brick, then some more files become
> > readable. However this solution still doesn't work for all files.
> > I know the file on the brick is not corrupt as it can be read
> directly
> > from the brick directory.
>
> For files that are not readable from the client, can you check if the
> file is readable from the .glusterfs/ path?
>
> What is the specific error that is seen while trying to read one such
> file from the client?
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users