Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-2190

failure on conf-sanity.sh test_49: Different LDLM_TIMEOUT:6 20 20

Details

    • Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Minor
    • Lustre 2.4.0
    • Lustre 2.4.0
    • 3
    • 5233

    Description

      This issue was created by maloo for Li Wei <liwei@whamcloud.com>

      This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/6f4fd31a-1735-11e2-afe1-52540035b04c.

      The sub-test test_49 failed with the following error:

      Different LDLM_TIMEOUT:6 20 20

      Info required for matching: conf-sanity 49

      Attachments

        Activity

          [LU-2190] failure on conf-sanity.sh test_49: Different LDLM_TIMEOUT:6 20 20

          New ticket for this failure:
          https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-8243

          yong.fan nasf (Inactive) added a comment - New ticket for this failure: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-8243

          If a bug hasn't been hit in 3+ years, but the same test fails again it deserves to have a new bug filed.

          adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - If a bug hasn't been hit in 3+ years, but the same test fails again it deserves to have a new bug filed.
          yong.fan nasf (Inactive) added a comment - Hit it again on master: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/ce06c2b0-2b04-11e6-a0ce-5254006e85c2

          From my point of view it can be closed. Thanks.

          prakash Prakash Surya (Inactive) added a comment - From my point of view it can be closed. Thanks.

          Now that http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5671 has landed, can this ticket be closed?

          jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - Now that http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5671 has landed, can this ticket be closed?
          laisiyao Lai Siyao added a comment -

          all needed patches landed.

          laisiyao Lai Siyao added a comment - all needed patches landed.
          pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

          ok then let's reopen but lower the priority to track the code cleanup patch landing

          pjones Peter Jones added a comment - ok then let's reopen but lower the priority to track the code cleanup patch landing

          Oh, sorry, that looks like code cleanup in 5671, not critical.

          morrone Christopher Morrone (Inactive) added a comment - Oh, sorry, that looks like code cleanup in 5671, not critical.

          Yes, 5671 is the one that we need at LLNL.

          morrone Christopher Morrone (Inactive) added a comment - Yes, 5671 is the one that we need at LLNL.
          pjones Peter Jones added a comment - Isn't http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5671 needed also?

          People

            laisiyao Lai Siyao
            maloo Maloo
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            11 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: