Re: File Corruption with shards - 100% reproducable

[Krutika Dhananjay <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

CC'd him only now.

---

From: "Krutika Dhananjay" <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Lindsay Mathieson" <lindsay.mathieson@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 11:05:27 AM
Subject: Re: File Corruption with shards - 100% reproducable

CC'ing Raghavendra Talur, who is managing the 3.7.6 release.

-Krutika

---

From: "Lindsay Mathieson" <lindsay.mathieson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Krutika Dhananjay" <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 7:17:35 PM
Subject: Re: File Corruption with shards - 100% reproducable

On 5 November 2015 at 21:55, Krutika Dhananjay <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Although I do not have experience with VM live migration,  IIUC, it is got to do with a different server (and as a result a new glusterfs client process) taking over the operations and mgmt of the VM.

Thats sounds very plausible
 

If this is a correct assumption, then I think this could be the result of the same caching bug that I talked about sometime back in 3.7.5, which is fixed in 3.7.6.

The issue could cause the new client to not see the correct size and block count of the file, leading to errors in reads (perhaps triggered by the restart of the vm) and writes on the image.

Cool, I look fwd to testing that in 3.7.6, which I believe is due out next week?

thanks,

 

--

Lindsay

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