+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #823664 +++ Description of problem: After migrating data from a distributed-stripe using remove-brick mount point shows different checksum across the arequal runs Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a distributed-stripe volume 3x2 2. add some data on the mount point and calculate arequal cheksum 3. Remove brick start on any one of the pair , once remove-brick completes commit it. 4. Now again calculate areequal checksum Actual results: Checksum differs. Expected results: Additional info: Client logs says [2012-05-21 19:52:22.155933] E [stripe-helpers.c:271:stripe_ctx_handle] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Failed to get stripe-size [2012-05-21 19:52:22.155962] E [stripe.c:212:stripe_lookup_cbk] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Error getting fctx info from dict [2012-05-21 19:52:22.156118] E [stripe-helpers.c:271:stripe_ctx_handle] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Failed to get stripe-size [2012-05-21 19:52:22.156141] E [stripe.c:212:stripe_lookup_cbk] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Error getting fctx info from dict [2012-05-21 19:52:22.158532] W [page.c:984:__ioc_page_error] 3-dis-stripe-io-cache: page error for page = 0x7f3ec8038fa0 & waitq = 0x7f3ec8034b70 [2012-05-21 19:52:22.158654] W [page.c:984:__ioc_page_error] 3-dis-stripe-io-cache: page error for page = 0x7f3ec8006f20 & waitq = 0x7f3ec801ac30 [2012-05-21 19:52:22.159257] E [stripe-helpers.c:271:stripe_ctx_handle] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Failed to get stripe-size [2012-05-21 19:52:22.159297] E [stripe.c:212:stripe_lookup_cbk] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Error getting fctx info from dict [2012-05-21 19:52:22.159508] E [stripe-helpers.c:271:stripe_ctx_handle] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Failed to get stripe-size [2012-05-21 19:52:22.159530] E [stripe.c:212:stripe_lookup_cbk] 3-dis-stripe-stripe-2: Error getting fctx info from dict [2012-05-21 19:52:22.162160] W [page.c:984:__ioc_page_error] 3-dis-stripe-io-cache: page error for page = 0x7f3ec8038fa0 & waitq = 0x7f3ec8034b70 --- Additional comment from sgowda on 2012-08-08 10:43:55 EDT --- Can we check if this issue still exists?
Verified on the build 3.4.0qa5-1.el6rhs.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, 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/RHBA-2013-1262.html