[LU-9887] sanity-lfsck test_9a: FAIL: (4) Got speed 952, expected less than 144

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Critical
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.10.6
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.11.0
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: nasf (Inactive)
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

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

This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/742f02b4-837a-11e7-b90b-5254006e85c2.

The sub-test test_9a failed with the following error:

(4) Got speed 952, expected less than 144

This might be a dup of LU-8877, but those haven't been reported for quite a while.
Creating a new Jira ticket for recent instances. Will let somebody else decide if they are dups.

Info required for matching: sanity-lfsck 9a
Info required for matching: sanity-lfsck 9b

Issue Links

• duplicates: LU-9894 lfsck always prints that it started all types of lfsck
• is related to: LU-6174 do_div() silently truncates divisor to uint32_t
• is related to: LU-9295 sanity-lfsck tests 9a and 9b skipped due to uninitialized server version

Comments

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/30247/
Subject: LU-9887 tests: adjust lfsck speek test error range
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 0457798e95e3628d7b4f0894fdc2dd13c2dd23f6

[nasf (Inactive)]

More patch for this ticket.

[Gerrit Updater]

Fan Yong ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/30247
Subject: LU-9887 tests: adjust lfsck speek test error range
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 644ae8cc3930cc504b7cfd24c745c0b78b6481d4

[nasf (Inactive)]

Raising the threshold will be the most simple solution. I will push a patch soon with this ticket number.

[Peter Jones]

So is the current test actually telling us anything useful? It sounds like you are saying that the failures for this test are because the failure threshold is too low. If that is the case, we should either raise the threshold to reduce these failures or else remove the test. As things stand it is failing quite often but just being assumed to be fine.

[nasf (Inactive)]

Currently, we allow some test error range for lfsck speed. If we want to make the test more robust, then either enlarge such error range or test more large data set. But there is no absolute solution for that.

[Peter Jones]

So we need a new ticket to track making this test more robust?

[nasf (Inactive)]

still seeing fails on master after the landing of https://review.whamcloud.com/28588 and https://review.whamcloud.com/28617:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/8ab76200-afbd-11e7-8d8d-5254006e85c2

This is a different issue that is caused by calculation error. As you can, the diff is (145 - 144) / 144, it can be ignored in our VM test environment.

sanity-lfsck test_9b: @@@@@@ FAIL: (10) Speed 145, expected < 144

[Gerrit Updater]

John L. Hammond ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29294/
Subject: LU-9887 lfsck: calculate LFSCK speed properly
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 0f14db83ab0fe0b505e3eabb7b51619cd42e5155

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

still seeing fails on master after the landing of https://review.whamcloud.com/28588 and https://review.whamcloud.com/28617:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/8ab76200-afbd-11e7-8d8d-5254006e85c2