Bug 1576190 - RMAN backups to GFS is throwing (ORA-19510: failed to set size of 1531352 blocks for file and ORA-27046: file size is not a multiple of logical block size).
Summary: RMAN backups to GFS is throwing (ORA-19510: failed to set size of 1531352 blo...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Alias: None
Product: GlusterFS
Classification: Community
Component: fuse
Version: mainline
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
urgent
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: bugs@gluster.org
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-05-09 05:28 UTC by somasekhar shivaram
Modified: 2023-09-14 04:27 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-07-15 07:08:14 UTC
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description somasekhar shivaram 2018-05-09 05:28:14 UTC
Description of problem:

RMAN backups to GFS is throwing (ORA-19510: failed to set size of 1531352 blocks for file and ORA-27046: file size is not a multiple of logical block size).

An example:
We think it's because RMAN created a file with 10 blocks and then resize the file to 1531352 blocks but the stat call didn't return 1531352  blocks.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
3.18.3

How reproducible:
This can be re-produced at will by running the RMAN backups to GFS. we can prove this behavior by adding debug trace and show that stat return the file size incorrectly after resize.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Vijay Bellur 2018-11-20 05:40:08 UTC
Could you please try by disabling the following performance options:


Option: performance.io-cache
Option: performance.quick-read
Option: performance.open-behind
Option: performance.stat-prefetch

It would be useful if you can provide strace from RMAN backup process so that we can understand the failure better. Thanks.

Comment 2 Amar Tumballi 2019-06-17 11:08:11 UTC
Hi Somasekhar, Is there any update from you on the questions Vijay asked in this bug? Otherwise we would consider closing this with INSUFFCIENT_DATA/WORKSFORME.

Also consider upgrading to glusterfs-6.x before testing if possible while validating, as we have many fixes in this area.

Comment 3 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 04:27:52 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.