Niels, Allesandro's configuration does not have shard enabled. So it has definitely not got anything to do with shard not supporting seek fop.
Copy-pasting volume-info output from the first mail: 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 -Krutika On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> 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. > > 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@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users