From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: FAILED assert(peer_missing.count(fromshard)) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:39:09 +0100 Message-ID: <54B93EAD.2040200@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wWeUhGxe85ecNx1cRVwl0rbQpCk7WVL9W" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:41924 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753039AbbAPQjM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:39:12 -0500 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Samuel Just Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --wWeUhGxe85ecNx1cRVwl0rbQpCk7WVL9W Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sam, In the context of http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10524 FAILED assert(peer= _missing.count(fromshard)) I propose to add some information for when it = happens: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3389 If what happens really is that a bad peer ends up being added with in mis= sing_loc.add_location, that will be a useful information. I tried a numbe= r of scenarios and could not find the right conditions to reproduce the p= roblem locally. Hopefully this additional information will show me where = to go :-) Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --wWeUhGxe85ecNx1cRVwl0rbQpCk7WVL9W Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlS5Pq0ACgkQ8dLMyEl6F203AwCfTLBrI9qXxlBW27WT+79jWjnD w/kAoJmRYmWk7QIJnEm+SM+2waXmu+ih =Su3L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wWeUhGxe85ecNx1cRVwl0rbQpCk7WVL9W--