Details
-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Major
-
Lustre 2.1.0
-
None
-
Lustre Branch: master
Lustre Build: http://newbuild.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-master/156/arch=x86_64,build_type=server,distro=el5,ib_stack=ofa/
e2fsprogs Build: http://newbuild.whamcloud.com/job/e2fsprogs-master/28/arch=x86_64,distro=el5/
-
1
-
3
-
4989
Description
While formatting an 128TB LUN with master build, I got the following failure:
# mkfs.lustre --reformat --fsname=largefs --ost --mgsnode=192.168.77.1@o2ib --mkfsoptions='-t ext4 -i 1058576' --mountfsoptions='errors=remount-ro,extents,mballoc,force_over_16tb' /dev/large_vg/ost_lv
mkfs.lustre FATAL: Unable to build fs /dev/large_vg/ost_lv (256)
mkfs.lustre FATAL: mkfs failed 256
Permanent disk data:Target: largefs-OSTffff
Index: unassigned
Lustre FS: largefs
Mount type: ldiskfs
Flags: 0x72
(OST needs_index first_time update )
Persistent mount opts: errors=remount-ro,extents,mballoc,force_over_16tb
Parameters: mgsnode=192.168.77.1@o2ib
device size = 134217728MB
formatting backing filesystem ldiskfs on /dev/large_vg/ost_lv
target name largefs-OSTffff
4k blocks 34359738368
options -t ext4 -i 1058576 -J size=400 -I 256 -q -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_nlink,huge_file,flex_bg -G 256 -E resize=4290772992,lazy_journal_init, -F
mkfs_cmd = mke2fs -j -b 4096 -L largefs-OSTffff -t ext4 -i 1058576 -J size=400 -I 256 -q -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_nlink,huge_file,flex_bg -G 256 -E resize=4290772992,lazy_journal_init, -F /dev/large_vg/ost_lv 34359738368
Warning: the fs_type huge is not defined in mke2fs.conf
The resize maximum must be greater than the filesystem size.
Bad option(s) specified:
Extended options are separated by commas, and may take an argument which
is set off by an equals ('=') sign.
Valid extended options are:
stride=<RAID per-disk data chunk in blocks>
stripe-width=<RAID stride * data disks in blocks>
resize=<resize maximum size in blocks>
lazy_itable_init=<0 to disable, 1 to enable>
lazy_journal_init=<0 to disable, 1 to enable>
test_fs
discard
nodiscard
The issue does not exist on b1_8 branch because the changes made in LU-255 were only landed on master branch. We need re-work on the patch.