Getting the following error message while adding a brick from different node to the volume. "volume add-brick: failed: Multiple bricks of a replicate volume are present on the same server. This setup is not optimal. Bricks should be on different nodes to have best fault tolerant configuration. Use 'force' at the end of the command if you want to override this behavior. " Provide version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): glusterfs-server-6.0-45.el8rhgs.x86_64 Is this issue reproducible? If yes, share more details.: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Create a replica 2 volume. 2.Add a brick from different node to convert it to replica 3 volume. Actual results: Getting an error message. "volume add-brick: failed: Multiple bricks of a replicate volume are present on the same server. This setup is not optimal. Bricks should be on different nodes to have best fault tolerant configuration. Use 'force' at the end of the command if you want to override this behavior. " However, with force option, add-brick is successful. Expected results: Error message should not be seen as the brick to be added is from a different node. Additional info: [root@dhcp47-141 ~]# gluster vol create vol2 replica 2 10.70.47.141:/bricks/brick2/vol2_brick2 10.70.47.41:/bricks/brick2/vol2_brick2 Support for replica 2 volumes stands deprecated as they are prone to split-brain. Use Arbiter or Replica 3 to avoid this. Do you still want to continue? (y/n) y volume create: vol2: success: please start the volume to access data [root@dhcp47-141 ~]# gluster vol start vol2 volume start: vol2: success [root@dhcp47-141 ~]# gluster vol info vol2 Volume Name: vol2 Type: Replicate Volume ID: dba4e3a0-b82a-41a6-b55e-9c4dac678718 Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0 Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 10.70.47.141:/bricks/brick2/vol2_brick2 Brick2: 10.70.47.41:/bricks/brick2/vol2_brick2 Options Reconfigured: storage.fips-mode-rchecksum: on transport.address-family: inet nfs.disable: on performance.client-io-threads: off [root@dhcp47-141 ~]# gluster vol add-brick vol2 replica 3 10.70.47.178:/bricks/brick2/vol2_brick2 volume add-brick: failed: Multiple bricks of a replicate volume are present on the same server. This setup is not optimal. Bricks should be on different nodes to have best fault tolerant configuration. Use 'force' at the end of the command if you want to override this behavior.
This bug is not a blocker for the release, with force option add-brick is successful.
[root@dhcp46-157 ~]# gluster vol create vol8 replica 2 10.70.46.157:/bricks/brick5/vol7_brick2 10.70.46.56:/bricks/brick5/vol7_brick2 Support for replica 2 volumes stands deprecated as they are prone to split-brain. Use Arbiter or Replica 3 to avoid this. Do you still want to continue? (y/n) y volume create: vol8: success: please start the volume to access data [root@dhcp46-157 ~]# gluster vol start vol8 volume start: vol8: success [root@dhcp46-157 ~]# [root@dhcp46-157 ~]# gluster vol add-brick vol8 replica 3 10.70.47.142:/bricks/brick0/vol8_brick2 volume add-brick: success [root@dhcp46-157 ~]# gluster vol info vol8 Volume Name: vol8 Type: Replicate Volume ID: 2dc220ad-6ea0-42e6-be6e-298990ea9e87 Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0 Number of Bricks: 1 x 3 = 3 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 10.70.46.157:/bricks/brick5/vol7_brick2 Brick2: 10.70.46.56:/bricks/brick5/vol7_brick2 Brick3: 10.70.47.142:/bricks/brick0/vol8_brick2 Options Reconfigured: storage.fips-mode-rchecksum: on transport.address-family: inet nfs.disable: on performance.client-io-threads: off cluster.brick-multiplex: off [root@dhcp46-157 ~]# Error message is not seen when the newly added brick is from a different node. Verified the fix in, glusterfs-server-6.0-46.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-server-6.0-46.el8rhgs.x86_64
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 (glusterfs bug fix and enhancement update), 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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:5603