gluster-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gluster-devel] solutions for split brain situation


From: Mark Mielke
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] solutions for split brain situation
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:29:07 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3

On 09/17/2009 11:52 PM, Michael Cassaniti wrote:


This could mean that GlusterFS is too lax with regard to consistency guarantees. If files can appear in the background, and magically be shown - this indicates that GlusterFS is not enforcing use through the mount point, which introduces the potential for inconsistent or faulty results. You are asking for it to guess what you want, without seeing that what you are asking for is incompatible with provisions for any guarantee of a consistent view. That "it works" is actually more concerning to me that justifying over your position. To me it says it's one more potential problem that I might hit in the future. A file that should be removed magically re-appears - how is this a good thing?

I guess the last question is a good one for the developers. If the required extended attributes do not exist on the backend, should the files/directories (excluding the root directory) show in a stat() call? That may be a blessing or curse for new users, especially when this post has been going on about automatic creation of extended attributes for pre-existing files in the backend.

Yep - exactly. Personally, I prefer correct behaviour over some one-time benefit of being able to mount on top of existing file store and have it do its best to automatically create extended attributes or treat files without extended attributes as files that exist.

When reading the GlusterFS replication description - it seemed like they discussed what happens if a node goes down *during* the unlink(), but they didn't specifically cover what happens if the node is down before and after the unlink(), but then brought back up some time later. One interpretation suggested to me that the journal would not hang around, and the file would be treated as gone from all "up" nodes, and then when the later node is brought back up, the file shows up as existing on only one node, and the self-heal would kick in and replicate the file as if it still exists. I didn't find the time to test this exact scenario yet, though...

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]