[LU-12284] Inactive OST doesn't block client without lazystatfs feature Created: 10/May/19 Updated: 10/May/19 |
|
| Status: | Open |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.12.1 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Li Xi | Assignee: | WC Triage |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 9223372036854775807 |
| Description |
|
On a server, I umounted the OST, and mount the clietn using “nolazystatfs ” option, expecting df to be blocked. However: [root@el7-vm1 ~]# umount /mnt/lustre_ost0 [root@el7-vm2 ~]# mount -t lustre 10.0.1.148@tcp:/global -o nolazystatfs /mnt/global/ However, only the first "df" is blocked at all. Other "df" can be run without any block at all [root@server17-el7-vm2 ~]# df ^C^C [root@server17-el7-vm2 ~]# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 10189076 1632284 8016172 17% / devtmpfs 931196 0 931196 0% /dev tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /dev/shm tmpfs 941176 8496 932680 1% /run tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /sys/fs/cgroup tmpfs 188236 0 188236 0% /run/user/0 10.0.1.148@tcp:/global 14495148 107992 13551572 1% /mnt/global [root@server17-el7-vm2 ~]# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 10189076 1632284 8016172 17% / devtmpfs 931196 0 931196 0% /dev tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /dev/shm tmpfs 941176 8496 932680 1% /run tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /sys/fs/cgroup tmpfs 188236 0 188236 0% /run/user/0 10.0.1.148@tcp:/global 14495148 107992 13551572 1% /mnt/global [root@server17-el7-vm2 ~]# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 10189076 1632284 8016172 17% / devtmpfs 931196 0 931196 0% /dev tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /dev/shm tmpfs 941176 8496 932680 1% /run tmpfs 941176 0 941176 0% /sys/fs/cgroup tmpfs 188236 0 188236 0% /run/user/0 10.0.1.148@tcp:/global 14495148 107992 13551572 1% /mnt/global This might not a big deal because I guess almost nobody wants to be blocked when running "df". However, it is not the expected behavior anyway. Am I misunderstanding the behavior of no-lazystatfs? |