Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1062197
dist-geo-rep : glusterfs rolling upgrade (2.1 to 2.1.2) while geo-rep is running results in failure to update stime on bricks.
Last modified: 2015-05-15 14:36:40 EDT
Description of problem: glusterfs rolling upgrade while geo-rep is running results in failure to update stime on bricks and fails to upgrade. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): glusterfs-3.4.0.59rhs-1 How reproducible: Happens everytime. Steps to Reproduce: 1.Create a geo-rep relationship between master and slave in RHS2.1 2.Try to upgrade using the upgrade steps from Documentation 3.check if it fails. Actual results: geo-rep fails to upgrade to new version through normal upgrade steps Expected results: Upgrade should be smooth even when geo-rep is running Additional info:
This bug is valid only when you are upgrading from "2.1 to 2.1.1" or "2.1 to 2.1.2", and documentation to avoid the problem is provided here https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Storage/2.1/html-single/Installation_Guide/
I'm not even sure that the bug is valid for update 4 (because the bug summary clearly mentions earlier releases) But the upgrade from glusterfs-59rhs to glusterfs-65rhs works just fine. Following are the steps I performed. Steps to upgrade. ============================================ ps -aef | grep gsync | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill -9 pkill glusterfs pkill glusterfsd pkill glusterd yum update -y reboot The order of nodes in which above steps should be executed. ============================================================= * Identify a slave node and upgrade it to newr version * Identify a correspnding master and upgrade it. The correspnding master can be identified by ruuning geo-rep status command. * Repeat first 2 steps till all the slave and corresponding master nodes are upgraded. Since above steps are working I am moving the the bug to verified. Please reopen if this does not work.
Hi Aravinda, Can you please requires doc text field to "-" if you think this bug does not need to be documented in the errata?
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-1263.html