Reproduction steps:
root@128:~# gluster volume create brick 128.224.95.140:/tmp/brick force ----- create the gluster volume
volume create: brick: success: please start the volume to access data
root@128:~# gluster volume set brick nfs.disable true
volume set: success
root@128:~# gluster volume start brick
volume start: brick: success
root@128:~# gluster volume info
Volume Name: brick
Type: Distribute
Volume ID: a59b479a-2b21-426d-962a-79d6d2
Status: Started
Number of Bricks: 1
Transport-type: tcp
Bricks:
Brick1: 128.224.95.140:/tmp/brick
Options Reconfigured:
nfs.disable: true
performance.readdir-ahead: on
root@128:~# gluster volume status
Status of volume: brick
Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid
------------------------------
Brick 128.224.95.140:/tmp/brick 49155 0 Y 768
Task Status of Volume brick
------------------------------
There are no active volume tasks
root@128:~# mount -t glusterfs 128.224.95.140:/brick gluster/
root@128:~# cd gluster/
root@128:~/gluster# du -sh
0 .
root@128:~/gluster# mkdir -p test/
root@128:~/gluster# cp ~/tmp.file gluster/
root@128:~/gluster# cp tmp.file test
root@128:~/gluster# cd /tmp/brick
root@128:/tmp/brick# du -sh *
768K test
768K tmp.file
root@128:/tmp/brick# rm -rf test --------- delete the test directory and data in the server side, not reasonable
root@128:/tmp/brick# ls
tmp.file
root@128:/tmp/brick# du -sh *
768K tmp.file
root@128:/tmp/brick# du -sh (brick dir)
1.6M .
root@128:/tmp/brick# cd .glusterfs/
root@128:/tmp/brick/.glusterfs
0 00
0 2a
0 bb
768K c8
0 c9
0 changelogs
768K d0
4.0K health_check
0 indices
0 landfill
root@128:/tmp/brick/.glusterfs
1.6M .
root@128:/tmp/brick# cd ~/gluster
root@128:~/gluster# ls
tmp.file
root@128:~/gluster# du -sh * (Mount dir)
768K tmp.file
In the reproduce steps, we delete the test directory in the server side, not in the client side. I think this delete operation is not reasonable. Please ask the customer to check whether they do this unreasonable operation.
It seems while deleting the data from BRICK, metadata will not deleted from .glusterfs directory.
I don't know whether it is a bug of limitations, please let us know about this?
Regards,
Abhishek
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:yes it is ext4. but what is the impact of this.Did you have a lot of data before and you deleted all that data? ext4 if I remember correctly doesn't decrease size of directory once it expands it. So in ext4 inside a directory if you create lots and lots of files and delete them all, the directory size would increase at the time of creation but won't decrease after deletion. I don't have any system with ext4 at the moment to test it now. This is something we faced 5-6 years back but not sure if it is fixed in ext4 in the latest releases.--On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes--On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:21 AM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Means the fs where this brick has been created?
On Apr 13, 2017 8:19 AM, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Is your backend filesystem ext4?On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:29 AM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:No,we are not using sharding
On Apr 12, 2017 7:29 PM, "Alessandro Briosi" <ab1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Il 12/04/2017 14:16, ABHISHEK PALIWAL ha scritto:
I have did more investigation and find out that brick dir size is equivalent to gluster mount point but .glusterfs having too much difference
You are probably using sharding?
Buon lavoro.
Alessandro Briosi
METAL.it Nord S.r.l.
Via Maioliche 57/C - 38068 Rovereto (TN)
Tel.+39.0464.430130 - Fax +39.0464.437393
www.metalit.com
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
--PranithPranith
Regards
Abhishek Paliwal
--Pranith
--
Regards
Abhishek Paliwal
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
