Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lotus deletes sealed sector #7545

Closed
1 task done
RobQuistNL opened this issue Oct 20, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed
1 task done

Lotus deletes sealed sector #7545

RobQuistNL opened this issue Oct 20, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@RobQuistNL
Copy link
Contributor

RobQuistNL commented Oct 20, 2021

Lotus component

  • lotus miner/worker - sealing

Lotus Version

v1.13.0-rc3

Describe the Bug

Situation: I have my storages mounted on my daemon (for the windowpost) through NFS. I don't want the finalized sealed sector to go from worker -> daemon -> storage machine, so I created a lotus worker on the storage machine with the storage attached.

So, my s-1 storage has 2 URL's:

Server: daemon (runs lotus daemon and miner)
Worker: w-pc1
Worker: w-pc2
Worker: w-c2
Storage: s-1

Lotus walks through the entire sealing process, and ends up with s-1 doing a GET for the sealed sector.
Daemon thinks "oh its on my remote w-c2 machine" so S-1 fetches from http://daemon:2345/remote (stupid, because why not just fetch from http://w-c2:2345/remote directly?)
Storage has it fetched and stored on disk. Now tells the remote to delete the sealed sector (because they don't need it anymore).
Daemon thinks "oh yeah I have that one local, in the NFS mount, lol" and deletes it.

Endpoint: FinalizeSector is stuck and all sealed data (complete sector) is gone.

I know I can prevent this by removing the s-1 worker. But then the daemon would do all the fetching directly into its own mounted NFS drive, effectively making the data do a stupid loop from W-c2 -> daemon -> S-1.

Preventing either one would be best.

@Reiers
Copy link

Reiers commented Jan 6, 2022

Hi @RobQuistNL

Did the issue get resolved in the merge?
If so, we can close this one :)

@Reiers Reiers added need/author-input Hint: Needs Author Input and removed need/triage labels Jan 6, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link

Oops, seems like we needed more information for this issue, please comment with more details or this issue will be closed in 24 hours.

@TippyFlitsUK TippyFlitsUK removed the need/author-input Hint: Needs Author Input label Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants