[Gluster-users] Some questions about theoretical gluster failures.

Jeff Darcy jdarcy at redhat.com
Wed Oct 26 18:06:28 UTC 2011

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:31:53 -0700
Harry Mangalam <harry.mangalam at uci.edu> wrote:

> Thanks very much for your input.
> I'm a bit surprised that new files would hash to the failed brick - 
> there isn't a check to make sure that the assigned brick is
> responding and fall back to a ready brick?  I can see that this would
> happen in the 1st few seconds of failure, but after a short timeout,
> shouldn't this feed back to the hasher?
> I'll explicitly test this when I bring up the new version today.

Definitely a good idea.  For all I know this behavior might have
changed, but if it did then I must have been looking the other way when
that happened.  ;)  It's not that dissimilar to the case where a brick
is full, which is handled by putting files elsewhere.  The only problem
is that the file will then be in the "wrong" place according to the hash
scheme, so lookups for it will be slightly more expensive.  All of this
is code that's already there for other reasons, but I wouldn't want to
claim it's all seamless unless/until I've tested it myself (and I
haven't for a while).

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list