[LU-5229] Interop 2.5.1<->2.6 failure on test suite sanity-hsm test_12c: Restored file differs Created: 18/Jun/14  Updated: 01/May/15  Resolved: 18/Jun/14

Status: Resolved
Project: Lustre
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.6.0
Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.5.2

Type: Bug Priority: Minor
Reporter: Maloo Assignee: WC Triage
Resolution: Duplicate Votes: 0
Labels: None
Environment:

server: 2.5.1
client: lustre-master build # 2091


Issue Links:
Duplicate
duplicates LU-5100 Getting attribute `lustre.lov' of `lu... Resolved
Severity: 3
Rank (Obsolete): 14568

 Description   

This issue was created by maloo for sarah <sarah@whamcloud.com>

This issue relates to the following test suite run: http://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/f4240700-f4ec-11e3-ae09-52540035b04c.

The sub-test test_12c failed with the following error:

Restored file differs

Looks like this has similar error as LU-4063

19:25:13:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: == sanity-hsm test 12c: Restore a file with stripe of 2 == 18:22:57 (1402795377)
19:25:13:LustreError: 11-0: lustre-MDT0000-mdc-ffff8800552aa000: Communicating with 10.1.6.52@tcp, operation mds_getxattr failed with -34.
19:25:13:LustreError: 11-0: lustre-MDT0000-mdc-ffff8800552aa000: Communicating with 10.1.6.52@tcp, operation mds_getxattr failed with -34.
19:25:13:LustreError: 26816:0:(vvp_io.c:1206:vvp_io_init()) lustre: refresh file layout [0x200000bd0:0x1d:0x0] error -34.
19:25:13:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: /usr/sbin/lctl mark  sanity-hsm test_12c: @@@@@@ FAIL: Restored file differs 
19:25:13:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: sanity-hsm test_12c: @@@@@@ FAIL: Restored file differs
19:25:13:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: /usr/sbin/lctl dk > /logdir/test_logs/2014-06-14/lustre-b2_5-el6-x86_64-vs-lustre-master-el6-x86_64--full--1_10_1__2091__-69837959705380-112501/sanity-hsm.test_12c.debug_log.$(hostname -s).1402795390.log;
19:25:13:         dmesg > /logdir/test_logs/2014-06-14/lust
19:25:13:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: /usr/sbin/lctl mark == sanity-hsm test 12d: Restore of a non archived, non released file must work == 18:23:22 \(1402795402\)


 Comments   
Comment by Oleg Drokin [ 18/Jun/14 ]

This is likely was fixed by LU-5100 in 2.5.2 (b2_5 current)

Generated at Sat Feb 10 01:49:38 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.4.14#940014-sha1:734e6822bbf0d45eff9af51f82432957f73aa32c.