Credit: Thanks to Krishnan Parthasarathi for identifying this as futurefeature. Description of problem: As of now it is expected from admin to set deem-statfs to on. This should be "on" by default when quota is enabled. Setting deem-statfs to off when quota is disabled is tracked in bug 1027693. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): glusterfs-server-3.4.0.39rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
https://code.engineering.redhat.com/gerrit/#/c/49894/ fixes the bug. Upstream patch -> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/11000/
[root@darkknightrises ~]# gluster v quota vol0 enable volume quota : success [root@darkknightrises ~]# gluster v info Volume Name: vol0 Type: Distributed-Replicate Volume ID: f53124d5-19ca-405f-8161-18f0b4d706c8 Status: Started Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 10.70.33.214:/rhs/brick1/b001 Brick2: 10.70.33.219:/rhs/brick1/b002 Brick3: 10.70.33.225:/rhs/brick1/b003 Brick4: 10.70.44.13:/rhs/brick1/b004 Options Reconfigured: features.quota-deem-statfs: on features.inode-quota: on features.quota: on features.show-snapshot-directory: enable performance.readdir-ahead: on features.uss: enable server.allow-insecure: on ================================================ [root@darkknightrises ~]# gluster v quota vol0 disable Disabling quota will delete all the quota configuration. Do you want to continue? (y/n) y volume quota : success [root@darkknightrises ~]# gluster v info Volume Name: vol0 Type: Distributed-Replicate Volume ID: f53124d5-19ca-405f-8161-18f0b4d706c8 Status: Started Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 10.70.33.214:/rhs/brick1/b001 Brick2: 10.70.33.219:/rhs/brick1/b002 Brick3: 10.70.33.225:/rhs/brick1/b003 Brick4: 10.70.44.13:/rhs/brick1/b004 Options Reconfigured: features.inode-quota: off features.quota: off features.show-snapshot-directory: enable performance.readdir-ahead: on features.uss: enable server.allow-insecure: on Bug verified on build glusterfs-3.7.1-6.el6rhs
Hi Vijai, The doc text is updated. Please review the same and share your technical review comments. If it looks ok, then sign-off on the same. Regards, Bhavana Also, is this the same as 1027693. If thats the case I can include this bug for the errata instead of 1027693.
Doc-text updated
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1495.html