On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell, checksumming incrementals are good for two
> >> things besides detecting bit flips:
> >> 1) It's easy to extend to signing the In
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, checksumming incrementals are good for two
>> things besides detecting bit flips:
>> 1) It's easy to extend to signing the Incremental, which is more secure
>> 2) It protects aga
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> As far as I can tell, checksumming incrementals are good for two
> things besides detecting bit flips:
> 1) It's easy to extend to signing the Incremental, which is more secure
> 2) It protects against accidental divergence like we saw when we added
> th
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> Right, so let's talk about how we get into that situation:
>> 1) Our existing OSDMap is "bad."
>> a) We were never "correct"
>> b) ...we went bad and didn't notice?
>> 2) The Incremental we got is "bad".
>> a) It's not the original Increme
> Right, so let's talk about how we get into that situation:
> 1) Our existing OSDMap is "bad."
> a) We were never "correct"
> b) ...we went bad and didn't notice?
> 2) The Incremental we got is "bad".
> a) It's not the original Incremental generated by the mon cluster
> b) ...it got corrup
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > We have had a range of bugs come up in the past because OSDs or mons have
>> > been running different versions of the code and have encoded diff
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > We have had a range of bugs come up in the past because OSDs or mons have
> > been running different versions of the code and have encoded different
> > variations of the same OSDMap epoch. When two
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> We have had a range of bugs come up in the past because OSDs or mons have
> been running different versions of the code and have encoded different
> variations of the same OSDMap epoch. When two nodes in the system
> disagree about what the data
We have had a range of bugs come up in the past because OSDs or mons have
been running different versions of the code and have encoded different
variations of the same OSDMap epoch. When two nodes in the system
disagree about what the data distribution is, all manner of things can go
wrong and
