Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-10199

sanity test_56xb: hard links individually migrated (12 != 11)

Details

    • Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Major
    • Lustre 2.11.0, Lustre 2.10.4
    • Lustre 2.11.0
    • None
    • 3
    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      This issue was created by maloo for Bob Glossman <bob.glossman@intel.com>

      This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://testing.whamcloud.com/test_sets/740cdf26-c31d-11e7-88ab-52540065bddc.

      The sub-test test_56xb failed with the following error:

      hard links individually migrated (12 != 11)
      

      strongly suspect this is due to the very recently landed "LU-6051 utils: allow lfs_migrate to handle hard links"
      test 56xb is brand new, only introduced in this patch.
      I'm wondering if this test has ever been passed on any SLES version.

      Info required for matching: sanity 56xb

      Attachments

        Activity

          [LU-10199] sanity test_56xb: hard links individually migrated (12 != 11)

          Steve Guminski (stephenx.guminski@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30616
          Subject: LU-10199 tests: Re-enable sanity test 56xb
          Project: fs/lustre-release
          Branch: master
          Current Patch Set: 1
          Commit: 14c03c1e43f62fa79fc38288834ebc0a5df40cf2

          gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Steve Guminski (stephenx.guminski@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30616 Subject: LU-10199 tests: Re-enable sanity test 56xb Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 14c03c1e43f62fa79fc38288834ebc0a5df40cf2
          pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

          Landed for 2.11

          pjones Peter Jones added a comment - Landed for 2.11

          Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/30078/
          Subject: LU-10199 utils: strip // from fid2path
          Project: fs/lustre-release
          Branch: master
          Current Patch Set:
          Commit: 116b73d69bf2462fa9e9b8b9f629794bbda90ee5

          gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/30078/ Subject: LU-10199 utils: strip // from fid2path Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: 116b73d69bf2462fa9e9b8b9f629794bbda90ee5

          Ben Evans (bevans@cray.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30078
          Subject: LU-10199 utils: strip // from fid2path
          Project: fs/lustre-release
          Branch: master
          Current Patch Set: 1
          Commit: 5a87fb56b121fdcd623cb9298e53903ee5719ff1

          gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Ben Evans (bevans@cray.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30078 Subject: LU-10199 utils: strip // from fid2path Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 5a87fb56b121fdcd623cb9298e53903ee5719ff1

          It would be good to have some examples of how this is broken, since I can't imagine how "lfs fid2path" is generating a non-absolute pathnames.

          adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - It would be good to have some examples of how this is broken, since I can't imagine how "lfs fid2path" is generating a non-absolute pathnames.

          Steve Guminski (stephenx.guminski@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30013
          Subject: LU-10199 lfs: Fix file name comparison in lfs_migrate
          Project: fs/lustre-release
          Branch: master
          Current Patch Set: 1
          Commit: 3a7fd98d46729b0d430b6fe30c55cba275574303

          gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Steve Guminski (stephenx.guminski@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30013 Subject: LU-10199 lfs: Fix file name comparison in lfs_migrate Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: 3a7fd98d46729b0d430b6fe30c55cba275574303

          Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29954/
          Subject: LU-10199 utils: disable sanity test 56xb
          Project: fs/lustre-release
          Branch: master
          Current Patch Set:
          Commit: 3ac484707aecb97ab8aa4716110205108b0535ea

          gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29954/ Subject: LU-10199 utils: disable sanity test 56xb Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: 3ac484707aecb97ab8aa4716110205108b0535ea

          Yes, that's possible.  My local CentOS test system was upgraded during that period.

          sguminsx Steve Guminski (Inactive) added a comment - Yes, that's possible.  My local CentOS test system was upgraded during that period.

          Here is an instance of it failing on el7 too:
          https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/216f1a9c-c361-11e7-a943-52540065bddc

          Is it possible that it originally passed test on el7.3 and is now failing on el7.4?

          bogl Bob Glossman (Inactive) added a comment - Here is an instance of it failing on el7 too: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/216f1a9c-c361-11e7-a943-52540065bddc Is it possible that it originally passed test on el7.3 and is now failing on el7.4?

          I just reran the sanity test on my local RHEL system, and it fails there, too.  So I'm not sure what has changed between the time that the patch was originally submitted and now that would cause this change in behavior.  I'll submit a new patch that disables the test instead of reverting.

          sguminsx Steve Guminski (Inactive) added a comment - - edited I just reran the sanity test on my local RHEL system, and it fails there, too.  So I'm not sure what has changed between the time that the patch was originally submitted and now that would cause this change in behavior.  I'll submit a new patch that disables the test instead of reverting.

          Do we have any idea why this is failing? I'd prefer a patch that fixes a problem vs. reverting it. Next best would be a patch to skip just the failing test for SLES, so that we keep the patch landed and testing under RHEL, and give us some time to fix the SLES issue.

          adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - Do we have any idea why this is failing? I'd prefer a patch that fixes a problem vs. reverting it. Next best would be a patch to skip just the failing test for SLES, so that we keep the patch landed and testing under RHEL, and give us some time to fix the SLES issue.

          People

            sguminsx Steve Guminski (Inactive)
            maloo Maloo
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: