[LU-793] Reconnections should not be refused when there is a request in progress from this client.

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Critical
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.6.0
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.1.0, Lustre 2.2.0, Lustre 2.4.0, Lustre 1.8.6
• Labels: JL
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Mikhail Pershin
• Reporter: Oleg Drokin

Description

While originally this was a useful workaround, it created a lot of other unintended problems.

This code must be disabled and instead we just should disable handling several duplicate requests at the same time.

Issue Links

• duplicates: LU-7 Reconnect server->client connection
• is related to: LU-2621 SIngle client timeout hangs MDS -related to LU-793
• is related to: LU-4349 conf-sanity test_47: test failed to respond and timed out
• is related to: LU-4458 Interop 2.5.0<->2.6 failure on test suite recovery-small test_9
• is related to: LU-18072 Lock cancel resending overwhelms ldlm canceld thread
• is related to: LU-7 Reconnect server->client connection
• is related to: LU-4359 1.8.9 clients has endless bulk IO timeouts with 2.4.1 servers
• is related to: LU-2429 easy to find bad client
• is related to: LU-4480 cfs_fail_timeout id 214 sleeping for -1000ms
• Trackbacks: Lustre 1.8.x known issues tracker While testing against Lustre b18 branch, we would hit known bugs which were already reported in Lustre Bugzilla https://bugzilla.lustre.org/. In order to move away from relying on Bugzilla, we would create a JIRA

Comments

[Christopher Morrone (Inactive)]

The patch

http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9211/

was determined to not be needed for b2_4.

[Manish Patel (Inactive)]

Hi

We are seeing similar issues on Lustre 2.1.6 release, so is this patch compatible with 2.1.x release and if yes then can this be backported to branch b2_1.

Thank You,
Manish

[Peter Jones]

Backports to b2_4

http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9209/
http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9210/
http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9211/

[Mikhail Pershin]

Peter, the LU-793 and LU-4349 are needed.

[Peter Jones]

Mike

Could you please clarify what LLNL would need to port in order to use this fix on b2_4?

Thanks

Peter

[Andreas Dilger]

I think this patch introduced a timeout in conf-sanity (LU-4349), so that needs to be addressed before this patch is introduced into the 2.4 release.