[LU-5986] conf-sanity test_83, test_84: failed to start OST Created: 05/Dec/14 Updated: 27/Nov/15 Resolved: 12/Dec/14 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.7.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.7.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Blocker |
| Reporter: | Jian Yu | Assignee: | Nathaniel Clark |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | zfs | ||
| Environment: |
FSTYPE=zfs |
||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Severity: | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 16703 | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Patch http://review.whamcloud.com/9078 for start ost1 service on onyx-36vm8 CMD: onyx-36vm8 mkdir -p /mnt/ost1 CMD: onyx-36vm8 zpool list -H lustre-ost1 >/dev/null 2>&1 || zpool import -f -o cachefile=none -d /dev/lvm-Role_OSS lustre-ost1 Starting ost1: lustre-ost1/ost1 /mnt/ost1 CMD: onyx-36vm8 mkdir -p /mnt/ost1; mount -t lustre lustre-ost1/ost1 /mnt/ost1 onyx-36vm8: mount.lustre: mount lustre-ost1/ost1 at /mnt/ost1 failed: No such file or directory onyx-36vm8: Is the MGS specification correct? onyx-36vm8: Is the filesystem name correct? onyx-36vm8: If upgrading, is the copied client log valid? (see upgrade docs) Start of lustre-ost1/ost1 on ost1 failed 2 On OSS node: 07:55:10:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: mkdir -p /mnt/ost1; mount -t lustre lustre-ost1/ost1 /mnt/ost1 07:55:10:LustreError: 2367:0:(obd_mount_server.c:1168:server_register_target()) lustre-OST0000: error registering with the MGS: rc = -2 (not fatal) 07:55:10:LustreError: 13a-8: Failed to get MGS log lustre-OST0000 and no local copy. On MDS node: 08:56:17:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: zfs get -H -o value lustre:svname lustre-mdt1/mdt1 2>/dev/null 08:56:17:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: lctl set_param -n mdt.lustre*.enable_remote_dir=1 08:56:17:LustreError: 13b-9: lustre-OST0000 claims to have registered, but this MGS does not know about it, preventing registration. 08:56:17:LustreError: 13b-9: lustre-OST0001 claims to have registered, but this MGS does not know about it, preventing registration. Maloo reports: Info required for matching: conf-sanity 83 |
| Comments |
| Comment by Oleg Drokin [ 05/Dec/14 ] |
|
So I think the patch did not even consider there being such a thing as zfs. Hopefully the fix is a straightforward easy change to a the test. |
| Comment by Nathaniel Clark [ 08/Dec/14 ] |
|
Also the
run_test 83 "ENOSPACE on OST doesn't cause message VFS: \ Busy inodes after unmount ..."
run_test 83 "check recovery_hard_time" Both with their own test_83 functions. |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 08/Dec/14 ] |
|
James Simmons (uja.ornl@gmail.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/12984 |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 08/Dec/14 ] |
|
Lets see if a simple fix corrects this. |
| Comment by Nathaniel Clark [ 08/Dec/14 ] |
|
Testing an identical patch locally, and it appears that it does. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 08/Dec/14 ] |
|
Nathaniel, does the simple patch in 12984 to create separate test numbers also fix the ZFS problem, or does that still need a second patch? |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 09/Dec/14 ] |
|
Andreas Dilger (andreas.dilger@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/12984/ |
| Comment by Nathaniel Clark [ 09/Dec/14 ] |
|
It still seems to fail on ZFS, though test 84 passed in local testing, but I didn't run full conf-sanity, I just ran test_84. I think it's expecting a setup it's not getting for ZFS because of skipped test 83. |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 09/Dec/14 ] |
|
Nathaniel, it looks like this may be the last major blocker for enforcing review-zfs. Any chance to get a patch for this quickly? |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 10/Dec/14 ] |
|
Nathaniel Clark (nathaniel.l.clark@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/13016 |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 11/Dec/14 ] |
|
Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/13016/ |
| Comment by Andreas Dilger [ 12/Dec/14 ] |
|
Patch landed to master for 2.7.0. |