[LU-1324] expected application behavior for timed out read operations Created: 13/Apr/12 Updated: 04/Jun/12 Resolved: 04/Jun/12 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.1.1, Lustre 1.8.x (1.8.0 - 1.8.5) |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Ned Bass | Assignee: | Zhenyu Xu |
| Resolution: | Not a Bug | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Environment: |
https://github.com/chaos/lustre |
||
| Severity: | 3 |
| Rank (Obsolete): | 6415 |
| Description |
|
A user application on our classified BGP system running a Lustre 1.8 client is having problems reading from 2.1 servers. We are still light on details about what exact errors the application is getting back from reads, if any. But on the client side we see reads timing out, lost connections, and EBUSY errors while reconnecting: Request ost_read sent 675s ago to 172.18.102.48@tcp1 has timed out (limit 675s) While on the server we get many of these corresponding events: Lustre: ls2-OST029f: Client <uuid> reconnecting My understanding is that all of this should be transparent to the application and no error should propagate to user space unless the client is evicted. Is this correct? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 15/Apr/12 ] |
|
Bobi Could you please comment on this one? Thanks Peter |
| Comment by Zhenyu Xu [ 16/Apr/12 ] |
|
yes, and the client application I/O will wait untill being evicted. |
| Comment by Ned Bass [ 16/Apr/12 ] |
|
Thanks. Also, could these errors result in fewer than the requested number of bytes being read (i.e. short reads)? |
| Comment by Zhenyu Xu [ 16/Apr/12 ] |
|
The IO rpc won't be returned to client if network issue happens, and client app will get -EIO if it fails to reconnecting to the OST from which it tries to get data. |
| Comment by Zhenyu Xu [ 03/Jun/12 ] |
|
Ned, Any further question about this ticket? |
| Comment by Ned Bass [ 04/Jun/12 ] |
|
Hi, No further questions, feel free to close the ticket. Thanks |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 04/Jun/12 ] |
|
Thanks Prakash. |