Re: Hammer mirror-copy issue

[Tim Darby <t+dfbsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--047d7b4728b442f6b604e1d50021
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks Matt, great info.  I didn't realize that you could mirror copy a
slave to a slave.  It looks like I must have accidentally done the PFS
softlink duplication thing you mentioned.


Tim


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com
> wrote:

>
> :- Verified that the files on the backup drive were good
> :- Stopped the mirror stream
> :- Successfully did a pfs-upgrade on the backup drive's PFS 1
> :- Formatted the primary drive and created a PFS 1 on it slaved to the
> :backup drive's PFS 1
> :- Started a mirror-copy from the backup drive's PFS 1 to the main drive's
> :PFS 1
> :
> :A
> :=E2=80=8Bny ideas on how the mirror-copy could have skipped some of the
> fil=
> :es?=E2=80=8B
> :
> :Tim
>
>     I don't think you needed to upgrade the backup drive's PFS 1.  You
>     can mirror-copy a slave to a slave.
>
>     If the files are present on the backup PFS 1 they should be present on
>     the slave PFS 1.  Hmm.  Are the transaction ids the same?  A slave PFS
>     will have a transaction id in the softlink that looks something like
>     this:
>
>         mirrors -> @@0x000000030a16daa4:00001
>
>     The actual slave PFS softlink is @@-1:00001 but when you ls it HAMMER
>     automatically prints out the last synchronized transaction id.  (For
>     master PFS's it always leaves it @@-1:<blah>).  Every time the slave
>     updates from the mirror-copy or mirror-stream the softlink should
>     update too.
>
>     Sometimes people accidently leave themselves CD'd into the slave, then
>     wonder why they aren't seeing updates.  You have to re-CD to get the
>     latest transaction id.
>
>     Othertimes people duplicate the PFS softlink but wind up writing out
>     a fixed transaction id instead of @@-1:<blah>.
>
>     It's possible that you accidently did the latter.  Try explicitly
> CD'ing
>     into the slave PFS via @@-1:00001.  If that turns out to be the problem
>     you can delete and recreate the PFS softlink (using -1) and it should
>     always read the latest transaction id again.
>
>     That's for slave PFS's.  Master PFS's should always have a PFS softlink
>     of @@-1:<blah>.  Perhaps there was a bug when you upgraded the backup
>     from slave to master.
>
>     In anycase, see if you can verify that both sides are synchronized to
>     the same transaction id.  The mirror-copy program will tell you what
>     the source is, and you can check the target's slave PFS softlink to see
>     what that is.
>
>                                                 -Matt
>
>

--047d7b4728b442f6b604e1d50021
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:trebuche=
t ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">Thanks Matt, great info. =C2=A0I didn&#39;=
t realize that you could mirror copy a slave to a slave. =C2=A0It looks lik=
e I must have accidentally done the PFS softlink duplication thing you ment=
ioned.</div>

<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div><br></div>Tim</div>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Matthew=
 Dillon <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dillon@apollo.backplane.com=
" target=3D"_blank">dillon@apollo.backplane.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<br>
:- Verified that the files on the backup drive were good<br>
<div class=3D"im">:- Stopped the mirror stream<br>
:- Successfully did a pfs-upgrade on the backup drive&#39;s PFS 1<br>
:- Formatted the primary drive and created a PFS 1 on it slaved to the<br>
:backup drive&#39;s PFS 1<br>
:- Started a mirror-copy from the backup drive&#39;s PFS 1 to the main driv=
e&#39;s<br>
:PFS 1<br>
:<br>
:A<br>
</div>:=3DE2=3D80=3D8Bny ideas on how the mirror-copy could have skipped so=
me of the fil=3D<br>
:es?=3DE2=3D80=3D8B<br>
:<br>
:Tim<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I don&#39;t think you needed to upgrade the backup drive&#39;=
s PFS 1. =C2=A0You<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 can mirror-copy a slave to a slave.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 If the files are present on the backup PFS 1 they should be p=
resent on<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the slave PFS 1. =C2=A0Hmm. =C2=A0Are the transaction ids the=
 same? =C2=A0A slave PFS<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 will have a transaction id in the softlink that looks somethi=
ng like<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 mirrors -&gt; @@0x000000030a16daa4:00001<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The actual slave PFS softlink is @@-1:00001 but when you ls i=
t HAMMER<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 automatically prints out the last synchronized transaction id=
. =C2=A0(For<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 master PFS&#39;s it always leaves it @@-1:&lt;blah&gt;). =C2=
=A0Every time the slave<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 updates from the mirror-copy or mirror-stream the softlink sh=
ould<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 update too.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sometimes people accidently leave themselves CD&#39;d into th=
e slave, then<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 wonder why they aren&#39;t seeing updates. =C2=A0You have to =
re-CD to get the<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 latest transaction id.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Othertimes people duplicate the PFS softlink but wind up writ=
ing out<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 a fixed transaction id instead of @@-1:&lt;blah&gt;.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 It&#39;s possible that you accidently did the latter. =C2=A0T=
ry explicitly CD&#39;ing<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 into the slave PFS via @@-1:00001. =C2=A0If that turns out to=
 be the problem<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 you can delete and recreate the PFS softlink (using -1) and i=
t should<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 always read the latest transaction id again.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 That&#39;s for slave PFS&#39;s. =C2=A0Master PFS&#39;s should=
 always have a PFS softlink<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 of @@-1:&lt;blah&gt;. =C2=A0Perhaps there was a bug when you =
upgraded the backup<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 from slave to master.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In anycase, see if you can verify that both sides are synchro=
nized to<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the same transaction id. =C2=A0The mirror-copy program will t=
ell you what<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the source is, and you can check the target&#39;s slave PFS s=
oftlink to see<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 what that is.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Matt<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--047d7b4728b442f6b604e1d50021--