Re: 3.7.13, index healing broken?

[Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

13.07.2016 09:16, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

13.07.2016 09:04, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

13.07.2016 08:56, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

13.07.2016 08:46, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

13.07.2016 08:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dmitry Melekhov <dm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

13.07.2016 01:52, Anuradha Talur пишет:

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

From: "Dmitry Melekhov" <dm@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:27:17 PM
Subject: Re: 3.7.13, index healing broken?



12.07.2016 17:39, Pranith Kumar Karampuri пишет:



Wow, what are the steps to recreate the problem?

just set file length to zero, always reproducible.

If you are setting the file length to 0 on one of the bricks (looks like
that is the case), it is not a bug.

Index heal relies on failures seen from the mount point(s)
to identify the files that need heal. It won't be able to recognize any file
modification done directly on bricks. Same goes for heal info command which
is the reason heal info also shows 0 entries.

Well, this makes self-heal useless then- if any file is accidently corrupted or deleted (yes! if file is deleted directly from brick this is no recognized by idex heal too), then it will not be self-healed, because self-heal uses index heal.

It is better to look into bit-rot feature if you want to guard against these kinds of problems.

Bit rot detects bit problems, not missing files or their wrong length, i.e. this is overhead for such simple task.

It detects wrong length. Because checksum won't match anymore.

Yes, sure. I guess that it will detect missed files too. But it needs far more resources, then just comparing directories in bricks?

What use-case you are trying out is leading to changing things directly on the brick?

I'm trying to test gluster failure tolerance and right now I'm not happy with it...

Which cases of fault tolerance are you not happy with? Making changes directly on the brick or anything else as well?

I'll repeat:
As I already said- if I for some reason ( real case  can be only by accident ) will delete file this will not be detected by self-heal daemon, and, thus, will lead to lower replication level, i.e. lower failure tolerance.

To prevent such accidents you need to set selinux policies so that files under the brick are not modified by accident by any user. At least that is the solution I remember when this was discussed 3-4 years back.

So only supported platfrom is linux? Or, may be, it is better to improve self-healing to detect missing or wrong length files, I guess this is very low cost in terms of host resources operation.
Just a suggestion, may be we need to look to alternatives in near future....

This is a corner case, from design perspective it is generally not a good idea to optimize for the corner case. It is better to protect ourselves from the corner case (SElinux etc) or you can also use snapshots to protect against these kind of mishaps.

Sorry, I'm not agree.
As you  know if on access missed or wrong lenghted file from fuse client it is restored (healed), i.e. gluster recognizes file is wrong and heal it , so I do not see any reason to provide this such function as self-healing.
Thank you!

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