Bug 1609224
Summary: | While moving multiple temporary files to the same destination concurrently, writes and reads on the same dest file fails with ESTALE and ENOENT | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Gluster Storage | Reporter: | Prasad Desala <tdesala> |
Component: | distribute | Assignee: | Susant Kumar Palai <spalai> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Prasad Desala <tdesala> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rhgs-3.4 | CC: | nchilaka, rhs-bugs, sabose, storage-qa-internal, tdesala |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | ZStream |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-03-30 12:02:19 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Prasad Desala
2018-07-27 10:14:10 UTC
can you try the test with turning off performance.open-behind? (In reply to Raghavendra G from comment #3) > can you try the test with turning off performance.open-behind? I'm able to reproduce this issue with performance.open-behind: off as well. The difference I saw during this test is, while running the script[1] only ESTALE errors are seen (with performance.open-behind: on, we are seeing both ESTALE and ENOENT) [1] while true; do cat /etc/redhat-release >> test;cat test;done (In reply to Prasad Desala from comment #4) > (In reply to Raghavendra G from comment #3) > > can you try the test with turning off performance.open-behind? > > I'm able to reproduce this issue with performance.open-behind: off as well. Please collect following debug information: * set diagnostics.client-log-level TRACE before starting tests * collect fuse-dumps during test. Attach client logs and fusedump collected to bz. Please collect this diagnostic data with performance.open-behind off. ping? similar to bug 1610258? (In reply to Sahina Bose from comment #9) > ping? similar to bug 1610258? Yes. I had the following comment on bz 1610258. (In reply to Raghavendra G from comment #10) > (In reply to Sahina Bose from comment #9) > > ping? similar to bug 1610258? > > Yes. I had the following comment on bz 1610258. From POSIX complaint standpoint, this is a genuine issue as renames are expected to be atomic and the above test case is expected to pass. Also note that, 1. create a tmp file 2. write to it 3. rename tmp file to a well known path is a common pattern and this pattern is repeated over. So, I think this bug should be fixed, but may not be high priority. |