Hi Atin,
On 25/06/15 14:24, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
On 06/25/2015 03:07 AM, John Gardeniers wrote:
No takers on this one?
On 22/06/15 14:37, John Gardeniers wrote:
Until last weekend we had a simple 1x2 replicated volume, consisting
of a single brick on each peer. After a drive failure screwed the
brick on one peer we decided to create a new peer and swap the bricks.
Running "gluster volume replace-brick gluster-rhev
dead_peer:/gluster_brick_1 new_peer:/gluster_brick_1 commit force".
Did replace brick succeeded? Ideally if you run replace brick commit
force, that can result into data loss until and unless you explicitly
take care of it.
No, replace brick failed. Gluster wanted both the old and new servers
connected and refused to proceed without them.
After trying for some time and not wishing to rely on a single peer we
added kari as an additional replica with "gluster volume add-brick
gluster-rhev replica 3 new_peer:/gluster_brick_1 force".
Can we now *safely* remove the dead brick and revert back to replica 2?
If the earlier replace brick didn't happen, then you can go for
remove-brick start followed by commit once the status is completed. But
double check the data as well.
Thanks, I'll try it over a weekend.
regards,
John
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
