[LU-6463] Interop 2.5.3<->master ost-pools test_1c: Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Won't Fix
• Priority: Minor
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.5.5
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.8.0
• Environment: server: lustre-master build#2983; client: 2.5.3
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: WC Triage
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

This issue was created by maloo for sarah <[e-mail]>

This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c3a03092-dfb8-11e4-b5b0-5254006e85c2.

The sub-test test_1c failed with the following error:

Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed

== ost-pools test 1c: Create a pool with a 16 character pool name == 04:23:32 (1428665012)
CMD: onyx-39vm3 lctl pool_new lustre.testpool12345678
onyx-39vm3: poolname testpool12345678 is too long (length is 16 max is 15)
onyx-39vm3: argument lustre.testpool12345678 must be <fsname>.<poolname>
onyx-39vm3: pool_new: File name too long
 ost-pools test_1c: @@@@@@ FAIL: Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed 
  Trace dump:

Info required for matching: ost-pools 1c
Info required for matching: ost-pools 7b

Issue Links

• duplicates: LU-5906 Interop 2.6.0<->master ost-pools test_1d: FAIL: pool_new failed lustre.testpool12345678
• is related to: LU-7144 Interop 2.7.0<->master- sanity-scrub test_14: (6) Some entry under /lost+found should be repaired
• is related to: LU-7155 Interop2.7.0<->master ost-pools test_7b: FAIL: can create a pool with an invalid name
• is related to: LU-6081 hsm: add file migrate support

Comments

[James A Simmons]

Is this still a problem?

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Another instance found for interop - EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client, tag 2.7.90.
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/f99a2d60-d567-11e5-bc47-5254006e85c2
Another instance found for interop - 2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client, tag 2.7.90.
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/e16b8c0c-d634-11e5-82a0-5254006e85c2
Another instance found for interop - EL7 Server/2.5.5 Client, tag 2.7.90.
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/93baffee-d2ae-11e5-8697-5254006e85c2
Another instance found for interop - 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client, tag 2.7.90.
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/ba9d84fe-d300-11e5-be5c-5254006e85c2

[Andreas Dilger]

The sanity-lfsck interop problems are unrelated to this ticket I think? In any case, we have completely disabled interop testing with lfsck (see LU-7144) because this is purely server-side functionality and there isn't any value testing this with different client versions.

As previously mentioned, the ost-pools test failure is due to
http://review.whamcloud.com/13241 and will continue to fail interop testing until that patch is landed to 2.5.x or the tests are skipped.

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 - EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client, build# 3316
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/d5d81872-cc9f-11e5-963e-5254006e85c2

Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 -2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client, build# 3316
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/2fc2aace-ccf9-11e5-b1fa-5254006e85c2

Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 - 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client, build# 3316
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/5af65186-ccc8-11e5-b80c-5254006e85c2

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Another instance found for interop : 2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client
Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
Client: master, build# 3303, RHEL 6.7
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1433717a-bb25-11e5-861c-5254006e85c2

Another instance found for interop : EL7 Server/2.5.5 Client
Server: master, build# 3303, RHEL 7
Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/edd273e2-bad8-11e5-b3d5-5254006e85c2

Another instance found for interop : 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client
Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
Client: master, build# 3303, RHEL 7
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/826ec7d6-bb0a-11e5-87b4-5254006e85c2

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Another instance found for interop : EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client
Server: master, build# 3303, RHEL 6.7
Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/36ee4ee6-bad6-11e5-9137-5254006e85c2

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 6.7
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/a9b9c352-a04a-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2

Server: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 7
Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/094a96c0-a000-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2

Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 7
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1eed362c-a05f-11e5-90cc-5254006e85c2

[Saurabh Tandan (Inactive)]

Another instance for following interop config
Server: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64
Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c973016e-9fcc-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2

[Andreas Dilger]

This is fallout from "LU-6081 lfs: check that pool name is not too long" patch http://review.whamcloud.com/13241 that reduced the maximum pool name length from 16 to 15. This is mostly just a test script failure and would need a patch on b2_5 to pass.