On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:08:22PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ... > > > > client from > > > > srvpve2-162483-2017/05/08-10:01:06:189720-datastore2-client-0-0-0 > > > > (version: 3.8.11) > > > > [2017-05-08 10:01:06.237433] E [MSGID: 113107] > > [posix.c:1079:posix_seek] > > > > 0-datastore2-posix: seek failed on fd 18 length 42957209600 [No such > > > > device or address] > > > > The SEEK procedure translates to lseek() in the posix xlator. This can > > return with "No suck device or address" (ENXIO) in only one case: > > > > ENXIO whence is SEEK_DATA or SEEK_HOLE, and the file offset is > > beyond the end of the file. > > > > This means that an lseek() was executed where the current offset of the > > filedescriptor was higher than the size of the file. I'm not sure how > > that could happen... Sharding prevents using SEEK at all atm. > > > > ... > > > > The strange part is that I cannot seem to find any other error. > > > > If I restart the VM everything works as expected (it stopped at ~9.51 > > > > UTC and was started at ~10.01 UTC) . > > > > > > > > This is not the first time that this happened, and I do not see any > > > > problems with networking or the hosts. > > > > > > > > Gluster version is 3.8.11 > > > > this is the incriminated volume (though it happened on a different one > > too) > > > > > > > > Volume Name: datastore2 > > > > Type: Replicate > > > > Volume ID: c95ebb5f-6e04-4f09-91b9-bbbe63d83aea > > > > Status: Started > > > > Snapshot Count: 0 > > > > Number of Bricks: 1 x (2 + 1) = 3 > > > > Transport-type: tcp > > > > Bricks: > > > > Brick1: srvpve2g:/data/brick2/brick > > > > Brick2: srvpve3g:/data/brick2/brick > > > > Brick3: srvpve1g:/data/brick2/brick (arbiter) > > > > Options Reconfigured: > > > > nfs.disable: on > > > > performance.readdir-ahead: on > > > > transport.address-family: inet > > > > > > > > Any hint on how to dig more deeply into the reason would be greatly > > > > appreciated. > > > > Probably the problem is with SEEK support in the arbiter functionality. > > Just like with a READ or a WRITE on the arbiter brick, SEEK can only > > succeed on bricks where the files with content are located. It does not > > look like arbiter handles SEEK, so the offset in lseek() will likely be > > higher than the size of the file on the brick (empty, 0 size file). I > > don't know how the replication xlator responds on an error return from > > SEEK on one of the bricks, but I doubt it likes it. > > > > inode-read fops don't get sent to arbiter brick. So this won't happen. Yes, I see that the arbiter xlator returns on reads without going to the bricks. Should that not be done for seek as well? It's the first time I actually looked at the code of the arbiter xlator, so I might well be misunderstanding how it works :) Thanks, Niels > > > > > > We have https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301647 to support > > SEEK for sharding. I suggest you open a bug for getting SEEK in the > > arbiter xlator as well. > > > > HTH, > > Niels > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > > -- > Pranith _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
