[LU-4880] conf-sanity test_32c: failed with 1

• Status: Resolved
• Project: Lustre
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.4.3
• Type: Bug
• Priority: Minor
• Reporter: Maloo
• Assignee: WC Triage
• Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
• Labels: mn4
• Severity: 3

Description

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

This issue relates to the following test suite run: http://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/fb844d20-c11b-11e3-a3ca-52540035b04c.

This looks a lot like LU-4223, but that is fixed. I think the fix is in b2_4, although the changes there look a lot less than the changes in master in the same area.

The sub-test test_32c failed with the following error:

test_32c failed with 1

Info required for matching: conf-sanity 32c

Comments

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

maloo reports "Failure Rate: 53.00% of last 100 executions [all branches]"
I'm finding it hard to believe the rate is really that high.
searching in maloo does show a lot of recent instances in various branches.
some have been identified as LU-4223 even though that is marked fixed.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

retest of the same patch hit the same failure; http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9929
https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/e758f77a-c1bf-11e3-b1ce-52540035b04c

It's starting to seem likely that something in the patch is bad and causing this failure.

[Di Wang]

Does 2.4 include http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/8409/ and http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/8409/. It seems the failure is because of this.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

As far as I can tell b2_4 doesn't include http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/8409. Did you really mean to say #8409 twice, or was that a typo?

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

back port of http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/8409

http://review.whamcloud.com/9959