Hi, i updated our live systems (debian stretch) from 5.3 -> 5.5 this morning; update went fine so far :-) However, on 3 (of 9) clients, the log entries still appear. The upgrade steps for all clients were identical: - install 5.5 (via apt upgrade) - umount volumes - mount volumes Interestingly the log entries still refer to version 5.3: [2019-03-20 08:38:31.880132] W [dict.c:761:dict_ref] (-->/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glusterfs/5.3/xlator/performance/quick-read.so(+0x6df4) [0x7f35f214ddf4] -->/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/glusterfs/5.3/xlator/performance/io-cache.so(+0xa39d) [0x7f35f235f39d] -->/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglusterfs.so.0(dict_ref+0x58) [0x7f35f9403a38] ) 11-dict: dict is NULL [Invalid argument] First i thought there could be old processes running/hanging on these 3 clients, but I see that there are 4 processes (for 2 volumes) running on all clients: root 11234 0.0 0.2 1858720 580964 ? Ssl Mar11 7:23 /usr/sbin/glusterfs --attribute-timeout=0 --entry-timeout=0 --lru-limit=0 --process-name fuse --volfile-server=gluster1 --volfile-id=/persistent /data/repository/shared/private root 11323 0.6 2.5 10061536 6788940 ? Ssl Mar11 77:42 /usr/sbin/glusterfs --attribute-timeout=0 --entry-timeout=0 --lru-limit=0 --process-name fuse --volfile-server=gluster1 --volfile-id=/workdata /data/repository/shared/public root 11789 0.0 0.0 874116 11076 ? Ssl 07:32 0:00 /usr/sbin/glusterfs --attribute-timeout=0 --entry-timeout=0 --process-name fuse --volfile-server=gluster1 --volfile-id=/persistent /data/repository/shared/private root 11881 0.0 0.0 874116 10992 ? Ssl 07:32 0:00 /usr/sbin/glusterfs --attribute-timeout=0 --entry-timeout=0 --process-name fuse --volfile-server=gluster1 --volfile-id=/workdata /data/repository/shared/public The first 2 processes are for the "old" mount (with lru-limit=0), the last 2 processes are for the "new" mount. But only 3 clients still have these entries. Systems are running fine, no problems so far. Maybe wrong order of the update? If i look at https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/upgrade_to_4.1/ - then it would be better to: unmount - upgrade - mount? Best regards, Hubert Am Di., 19. März 2019 um 15:53 Uhr schrieb Artem Russakovskii <archon810@xxxxxxxxx>: > > The flood is indeed fixed for us on 5.5. However, the crashes are not. > > Sincerely, > Artem > > -- > Founder, Android Police, APK Mirror, Illogical Robot LLC > beerpla.net | +ArtemRussakovskii | @ArtemR > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:41 AM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Amar, >> >> if you refer to this bug: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674225 : in the test >> setup i haven't seen those entries, while copying & deleting a few GBs >> of data. For a final statement we have to wait until i updated our >> live gluster servers - could take place on tuesday or wednesday. >> >> Maybe other users can do an update to 5.4 as well and report back here. >> >> >> Hubert >> >> >> >> Am Mo., 18. März 2019 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan >> <atumball@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> > Hi Hu Bert, >> > >> > Appreciate the feedback. Also are the other boiling issues related to logs fixed now? >> > >> > -Amar >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 3:54 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> update: upgrade from 5.3 -> 5.5 in a replicate 3 test setup with 2 >> >> volumes done. In 'gluster peer status' the peers stay connected during >> >> the upgrade, no 'peer rejected' messages. No cksum mismatches in the >> >> logs. Looks good :-) >> >> >> >> Am Mo., 18. März 2019 um 09:54 Uhr schrieb Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > >> >> > Good morning :-) >> >> > >> >> > for debian the packages are there: >> >> > https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/5/5.5/Debian/stretch/amd64/apt/pool/main/g/glusterfs/ >> >> > >> >> > I'll do an upgrade of a test installation 5.3 -> 5.5 and see if there >> >> > are some errors etc. and report back. >> >> > >> >> > btw: no release notes for 5.4 and 5.5 so far? >> >> > https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/release-notes/ ? >> >> > >> >> > Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 14:28 Uhr schrieb Shyam Ranganathan >> >> > <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > > >> >> > > We created a 5.5 release tag, and it is under packaging now. It should >> >> > > be packaged and ready for testing early next week and should be released >> >> > > close to mid-week next week. >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks, >> >> > > Shyam >> >> > > On 3/13/19 12:34 PM, Artem Russakovskii wrote: >> >> > > > Wednesday now with no update :-/ >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > Artem >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> >> > > > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> >> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii >> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> >> > > > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Artem Russakovskii <archon810@xxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:archon810@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi Amar, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Any updates on this? I'm still not seeing it in OpenSUSE build >> >> > > > repos. Maybe later today? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Thanks. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > Artem >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> >> > > > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> >> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii >> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> >> > > > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:30 PM Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan >> >> > > > <atumball@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:atumball@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > We are talking days. Not weeks. Considering already it is >> >> > > > Thursday here. 1 more day for tagging, and packaging. May be ok >> >> > > > to expect it on Monday. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -Amar >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:54 AM Artem Russakovskii >> >> > > > <archon810@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:archon810@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Is the next release going to be an imminent hotfix, i.e. >> >> > > > something like today/tomorrow, or are we talking weeks? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > Artem >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Founder, Android Police <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK >> >> > > > Mirror <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> >> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii >> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> >> > > > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM Artem Russakovskii >> >> > > > <archon810@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:archon810@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Ended up downgrading to 5.3 just in case. Peer status >> >> > > > and volume status are OK now. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > zypper install --oldpackage glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1 >> >> > > > Loading repository data... >> >> > > > Reading installed packages... >> >> > > > Resolving package dependencies... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Problem: glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 requires >> >> > > > libgfapi0 = 5.3, but this requirement cannot be provided >> >> > > > not installable providers: >> >> > > > libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64[glusterfs] >> >> > > > Solution 1: Following actions will be done: >> >> > > > downgrade of libgfapi0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> >> > > > libgfapi0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > downgrade of libgfchangelog0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> >> > > > libgfchangelog0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > downgrade of libgfrpc0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> >> > > > libgfrpc0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > downgrade of libgfxdr0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> >> > > > libgfxdr0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > downgrade of libglusterfs0-5.4-lp150.100.1.x86_64 to >> >> > > > libglusterfs0-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > Solution 2: do not install glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 >> >> > > > Solution 3: break glusterfs-5.3-lp150.100.1.x86_64 by >> >> > > > ignoring some of its dependencies >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Choose from above solutions by number or cancel >> >> > > > [1/2/3/c] (c): 1 >> >> > > > Resolving dependencies... >> >> > > > Resolving package dependencies... >> >> > > > >> >> > > > The following 6 packages are going to be downgraded: >> >> > > > glusterfs libgfapi0 libgfchangelog0 libgfrpc0 >> >> > > > libgfxdr0 libglusterfs0 >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 6 packages to downgrade. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > Artem >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Founder, Android Police >> >> > > > <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> >> > > > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> >> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | +ArtemRussakovskii >> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> | @ArtemR >> >> > > > <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:57 AM Artem Russakovskii >> >> > > > <archon810@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:archon810@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Noticed the same when upgrading from 5.3 to 5.4, as >> >> > > > mentioned. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I'm confused though. Is actual replication affected, >> >> > > > because the 5.4 server and the 3x 5.3 servers still >> >> > > > show heal info as all 4 connected, and the files >> >> > > > seem to be replicating correctly as well. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > So what's actually affected - just the status >> >> > > > command, or leaving 5.4 on one of the nodes is doing >> >> > > > some damage to the underlying fs? Is it fixable by >> >> > > > tweaking transport.socket.ssl-enabled? Does >> >> > > > upgrading all servers to 5.4 resolve it, or should >> >> > > > we revert back to 5.3? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > Artem >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Founder, Android Police >> >> > > > <http://www.androidpolice.com>, APK Mirror >> >> > > > <http://www.apkmirror.com/>, Illogical Robot LLC >> >> > > > beerpla.net <http://beerpla.net/> | >> >> > > > +ArtemRussakovskii >> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii> >> >> > > > | @ArtemR <http://twitter.com/ArtemR> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:02 AM Hu Bert >> >> > > > <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > fyi: did a downgrade 5.4 -> 5.3 and it worked. >> >> > > > all replicas are up and >> >> > > > running. Awaiting updated v5.4. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > thx :-) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Hari >> >> > > > Gowtham <hgowtham@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:hgowtham@xxxxxxxxxx>>: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > There are plans to revert the patch causing >> >> > > > this error and rebuilt 5.4. >> >> > > > > This should happen faster. the rebuilt 5.4 >> >> > > > should be void of this upgrade issue. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > In the meantime, you can use 5.3 for this cluster. >> >> > > > > Downgrading to 5.3 will work if it was just >> >> > > > one node that was upgrade to 5.4 >> >> > > > > and the other nodes are still in 5.3. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:07 PM Hu Bert >> >> > > > <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hi Hari, >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > thx for the hint. Do you know when this will >> >> > > > be fixed? Is a downgrade >> >> > > > > > 5.4 -> 5.3 a possibility to fix this? >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hubert >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 08:32 Uhr schrieb >> >> > > > Hari Gowtham <hgowtham@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:hgowtham@xxxxxxxxxx>>: >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Hi, >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > This is a known issue we are working on. >> >> > > > > > > As the checksum differs between the >> >> > > > updated and non updated node, the >> >> > > > > > > peers are getting rejected. >> >> > > > > > > The bricks aren't coming because of the >> >> > > > same issue. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > More about the issue: >> >> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685120 >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:56 PM Hu Bert >> >> > > > <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Interestingly: gluster volume status >> >> > > > misses gluster1, while heal >> >> > > > > > > > statistics show gluster1: >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > gluster volume status workdata >> >> > > > > > > > Status of volume: workdata >> >> > > > > > > > Gluster process >> >> > > > TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > 49153 0 Y 1723 >> >> > > > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > 49153 0 Y 2068 >> >> > > > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost >> >> > > > N/A N/A Y 1732 >> >> > > > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 >> >> > > > N/A N/A Y 2077 >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > vs. >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > gluster volume heal workdata statistics >> >> > > > heal-count >> >> > > > > > > > Gathering count of entries to be healed >> >> > > > on volume workdata has been successful >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > > > > > Number of entries: 0 >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > > > > > Number of entries: 10745 >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > > > > > Number of entries: 10744 >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 08:18 Uhr >> >> > > > schrieb Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hi Miling, >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > well, there are such entries, but >> >> > > > those haven't been a problem during >> >> > > > > > > > > install and the last kernel >> >> > > > update+reboot. The entries look like: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PUBLIC_IP gluster2.alpserver.de >> >> > > > <http://gluster2.alpserver.de> gluster2 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 192.168.0.50 gluster1 >> >> > > > > > > > > 192.168.0.51 gluster2 >> >> > > > > > > > > 192.168.0.52 gluster3 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 'ping gluster2' resolves to LAN IP; I >> >> > > > removed the last entry in the >> >> > > > > > > > > 1st line, did a reboot ... no, didn't >> >> > > > help. From >> >> > > > > > > > > /var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log >> >> > > > > > > > > on gluster 2: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188128] E [MSGID: >> >> > > > 106010] >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > [glusterd-utils.c:3483:glusterd_compare_friend_volume] >> >> > > > 0-management: >> >> > > > > > > > > Version of Cksums persistent differ. >> >> > > > local cksum = 3950307018, remote >> >> > > > > > > > > cksum = 455409345 on peer gluster1 >> >> > > > > > > > > [2019-03-05 07:04:36.188314] I [MSGID: >> >> > > > 106493] >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > [glusterd-handler.c:3843:glusterd_xfer_friend_add_resp] >> >> > > > 0-glusterd: >> >> > > > > > > > > Responded to gluster1 (0), ret: 0, >> >> > > > op_ret: -1 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Interestingly there are no entries in >> >> > > > the brick logs of the rejected >> >> > > > > > > > > server. Well, not surprising as no >> >> > > > brick process is running. The >> >> > > > > > > > > server gluster1 is still in rejected >> >> > > > state. >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 'gluster volume start workdata force' >> >> > > > starts the brick process on >> >> > > > > > > > > gluster1, and some heals are happening >> >> > > > on gluster2+3, but via 'gluster >> >> > > > > > > > > volume status workdata' the volumes >> >> > > > still aren't complete. >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > gluster1: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > > > > > > Brick gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > 49152 0 Y 2523 >> >> > > > > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost >> >> > > > N/A N/A Y 2549 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > gluster2: >> >> > > > > > > > > Gluster process >> >> > > > TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > > > > > > Brick gluster2:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > 49153 0 Y 1723 >> >> > > > > > > > > Brick gluster3:/gluster/md4/workdata >> >> > > > 49153 0 Y 2068 >> >> > > > > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on localhost >> >> > > > N/A N/A Y 1732 >> >> > > > > > > > > Self-heal Daemon on gluster3 >> >> > > > N/A N/A Y 2077 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hubert >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr >> >> > > > schrieb Milind Changire <mchangir@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:mchangir@xxxxxxxxxx>>: >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > There are probably DNS entries or >> >> > > > /etc/hosts entries with the public IP Addresses >> >> > > > that the host names (gluster1, gluster2, >> >> > > > gluster3) are getting resolved to. >> >> > > > > > > > > > /etc/resolv.conf would tell which is >> >> > > > the default domain searched for the node names >> >> > > > and the DNS servers which respond to the queries. >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Hu >> >> > > > Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Good morning, >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> i have a replicate 3 setup with 2 >> >> > > > volumes, running on version 5.3 on >> >> > > > > > > > > >> debian stretch. This morning i >> >> > > > upgraded one server to version 5.4 and >> >> > > > > > > > > >> rebooted the machine; after the >> >> > > > restart i noticed that: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> - no brick process is running >> >> > > > > > > > > >> - gluster volume status only shows >> >> > > > the server itself: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> gluster volume status workdata >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Status of volume: workdata >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Gluster process >> >> > > > TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Brick >> >> > > > gluster1:/gluster/md4/workdata N/A >> >> > > > N/A N N/A >> >> > > > > > > > > >> NFS Server on localhost >> >> > > > N/A N/A N N/A >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the server >> >> > > > > > > > > >> gluster peer status >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Uuid: >> >> > > > c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >> >> > > > > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster2 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Uuid: >> >> > > > 162fea82-406a-4f51-81a3-e90235d8da27 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> - gluster peer status on the other >> >> > > > 2 servers: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> gluster peer status >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Number of Peers: 2 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster1 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Uuid: >> >> > > > 9a360776-7b58-49ae-831e-a0ce4e4afbef >> >> > > > > > > > > >> State: Peer Rejected (Connected) >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Hostname: gluster3 >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Uuid: >> >> > > > c7b4a448-ca6a-4051-877f-788f9ee9bc4a >> >> > > > > > > > > >> State: Peer in Cluster (Connected) >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> I noticed that, in the brick logs, >> >> > > > i see that the public IP is used >> >> > > > > > > > > >> instead of the LAN IP. brick logs >> >> > > > from one of the volumes: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> rejected node: >> >> > > > https://pastebin.com/qkpj10Sd >> >> > > > > > > > > >> connected nodes: >> >> > > > https://pastebin.com/8SxVVYFV >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Why is the public IP suddenly used >> >> > > > instead of the LAN IP? Killing all >> >> > > > > > > > > >> gluster processes and rebooting >> >> > > > (again) didn't help. >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Thx, >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Hubert >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> >> > > > > > > > > > Milind >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > > > > > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > > > > > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > -- >> >> > > > > > > Regards, >> >> > > > > > > Hari Gowtham. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > -- >> >> > > > > Regards, >> >> > > > > Hari Gowtham. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > <mailto:Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > > > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Amar Tumballi (amarts) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> > > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > Gluster-users mailing list >> >> > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Amar Tumballi (amarts) _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
