[LU-2559] test: lustre-rsync-test test 1 - setfattr <file path>: Operation not supported

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Won't Fix
• Priority: Blocker
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.5.0
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.3.0, Lustre 2.4.0, Lustre 2.1.3
• Labels: LB

Environment

Server: 2.1.3-1nasS, centos 6.3, 2.6.32_279.2.1.el6
Client: 2.3.0-2nasC, sles11sp2, 3.0.42_0.7.3
 mds: service337
 oss: service361, service362
clients: service331, service332
Git source: https://github.com/jlan/lustre-nas

• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bob Glossman (Inactive)
• Reporter: Jay Lan (Inactive)

Description

== lustre-rsync-test test 1: Simple Replication ====================================================== 23:39:05 (1357025945)
lustre-MDT0000: Registered changelog user cl1
Replication #1
Lustre filesystem: lustre
MDT device: lustre-MDT0000
Source: /mnt/nbp0-1
Target: /var/acc-sm/target
Target: /var/acc-sm/target2
Statuslog: /var/acc-sm/lustre_rsync.log
Changelog registration: cl1
Starting changelog record: 0
Clear changelog after use: no
Errors: 0
lustre_rsync took 0 seconds
Changelog records consumed: 20
setfattr: /mnt/nbp0-1/d0.lustre-rsync-test/d1/file5: Operation not supported
Replication #2
Replication of operation failed(-17): 20 SLINK (4) [0x200000400:0xe:0x0] [0x200000400:0x3:0x0] link3
Lustre filesystem: lustre
MDT device: lustre-MDT0000
Source: /mnt/nbp0-1
Target: /var/acc-sm/target
Target: /var/acc-sm/target2
Statuslog: /var/acc-sm/lustre_rsync.log
Changelog registration: cl1
Starting changelog record: 20
Clear changelog after use: no
Errors: 1
lustre_rsync took 0 seconds
Changelog records consumed: 4
/var/acc-sm/target/d0.lustre-rsync-test/d1/file5: user.foo: No such attribute
/var/acc-sm/target2/d0.lustre-rsync-test/d1/file5: user.foo: No such attribute
lustre-rsync-test test_1: @@@@@@ FAIL: Error in replicating xattrs.
Trace dump:
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:3643:error_noexit()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:3665:error()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/lustre-rsync-test.sh:193:test_1()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:3907:run_one()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:3937:run_one_logged()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:3808:run_test()
= /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/lustre-rsync-test.sh:205:main()
Dumping lctl log to /var/acc-sm/test_logs/lustre-rsync-test.test_1.*.1357025946.log
FAIL 1 (3s)

Comments

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

Jay, are you sure you have a 2.1.3 client for sles11 sp2? I think the standard prebuilt rpms for sles11 are for sp1, not sp2. I haven't been able to build any client 2.1 for sp2. I've only succeeded in building client 2.3 and master for sp2.

you could do lctl lustre_build_version on the client to double check.

[Jay Lan (Inactive)]

I saw this error again when testing the SUSE version of lustre-2.1.3 client for sles11sp2. Note that my servers are still 2.1.3.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

nasf, adding you to the watcher list as Peter asked. This bug seems to be due to version interop problems with connect flags. Do you know anything in the 2.3 timeframe that might be related? It was suggested you might know or have worked in this area. Just looking at the 2.1 vs. 2.3 code I haven't been able to spot anything obvious, all the flag definitions and so forth look compatible.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

Looks like this is an interop problem between 2.3 clients and 2.1 servers. The key fact is the following error that shows up in client dmesg at mount time:

Lustre: Disabling user_xattr feature because it is not supported on the server

This happens with any 2.3 or 2.3+ client, sles11 or centos.
Once the client is mounted with user_xattr disabled, any setfattr command attempted by the client will fail.

Not sure exactly why the 2.3 client thinks the 2.1 server is incapable of doing user_xattr.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

So far I haven't been able to reproduce the failure. I have been trying to vary the client side only. It will take me a bit longer to bring up a 2.1 server in case it's the server side that causes the problem. I will keep trying to reproduce it.

[Peter Jones]

Bob

Could you please look into this one?

Thanks

Peter