https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-3438 Lustre <p>Our testing system shows, that there is failed test eplay-ost-single.test_5</p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-java">Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: == replay-ost-single test 5: Fail OST during iozone == 21:21:13 (1369851673) Lustre: Failing over lustre-OST0000 LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred <span class="code-keyword">while</span> communicating with 0@lo. The ost_write operation failed with -19 LustreError: Skipped 1 previous similar message Lustre: lustre-OST0000-osc-ffff8800514d3400: Connection to lustre-OST0000 (at 0@lo) was lost; in progress operations using <span class="code-keyword">this</span> service will wait <span class="code-keyword">for</span> recovery to complete Lustre: Skipped 1 previous similar message Lustre: lustre-OST0000: shutting down <span class="code-keyword">for</span> failover; client state will be preserved. Lustre: OST lustre-OST0000 has stopped. Lustre: server umount lustre-OST0000 complete LustreError: 137-5: UUID <span class="code-quote">'lustre-OST0000_UUID'</span> is not available <span class="code-keyword">for</span> connect (no target) LustreError: Skipped 1 previous similar message LDISKFS-fs (loop1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: LDISKFS-fs (loop1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: Lustre: 16962:0:(ldlm_lib.c:2195:target_recovery_init()) RECOVERY: service lustre-OST0000, 2 recoverable clients, last_transno 1322 Lustre: lustre-OST0000: Now serving lustre-OST0000 on /dev/loop1 with recovery enabled Lustre: 2398:0:(ldlm_lib.c:1021:target_handle_connect()) lustre-OST0000: connection from lustre-MDT0000-mdtlov_UUID@0@lo recovering/t0 exp ffff88005ca19c00 cur 1369851700 last 1369851697 Lustre: 2398:0:(ldlm_lib.c:1021:target_handle_connect()) Skipped 3 previous similar messages Lustre: lustre-OST0000: Will be in recovery <span class="code-keyword">for</span> at least 1:00, or until 2 clients reconnect Lustre: lustre-OST0000: Recovery over after 0:01, of 2 clients 2 recovered and 0 were evicted. Lustre: lustre-OST0000-osc-MDT0000: Connection restored to lustre-OST0000 (at 0@lo) Lustre: Skipped 1 previous similar message LustreError: 1716:0:(osc_request.c:1232:check_write_rcs()) Unexpected # bytes transferred: 65536 (requested 32768) LustreError: 1716:0:(osc_request.c:1232:check_write_rcs()) Unexpected # bytes transferred: 2097152 (requested 1048576) Lustre: lustre-OST0000: received MDS connection from 0@lo Lustre: MDS mdd_obd-lustre-MDT0000: lustre-OST0000_UUID now active, resetting orphans Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: iozone rc=1 Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: replay-ost-single test_5: @@@@@@ FAIL: iozone failed </pre> </div></div> <p>This messages looks related to 4mb IO patch</p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-java">LustreError: 1716:0:(osc_request.c:1232:check_write_rcs()) Unexpected # bytes transferred: 65536 (requested 32768) LustreError: 1716:0:(osc_request.c:1232:check_write_rcs()) Unexpected # bytes transferred: 2097152 (requested 1048576) </pre> </div></div> <p>I believe, that this test is failed in master branch, but they skip it as SLOW during testing<br/> <a href="https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/dd033a98-7264-11e2-aad1-52540035b04c" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/dd033a98-7264-11e2-aad1-52540035b04c</a></p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-java">test_5 SKIP 0 0 skipping SLOW test 5 </pre> </div></div> Lustre master branch LU-3438

replay-ost-single test_5 failed with error int check_write_rcs() "Unexpected # bytes transferred"

Bug Major Resolved Duplicate Keith Mannthey Artem Blagodarenko Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:17:10 +0000 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:09:54 +0000 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:09:54 +0000 Lustre 2.4.0 0 5 <p>Could you, please, start this test (it marked as SLOW) and check if it failed?</p> <p>Issue related to <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1431" title="Support for larger than 1MB sequential I/O RPCs" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-1431"><del>LU-1431</del></a>.</p> <p>This test runs just not with every patch review. You can do a subtest search in Maloo (it is a little slow but works). <a href="https://maloo.whamcloud.com/sub_tests/query" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://maloo.whamcloud.com/sub_tests/query</a></p> <p>This is an 2.4 -RC1 run that passed:<br/> <a href="https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/92b8f0d2-cdf3-11e2-ba28-52540035b04c" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/92b8f0d2-cdf3-11e2-ba28-52540035b04c</a></p> <p>There was some trouble with this test a while ago. Please see <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-2817" title="Failure on test suite replay-ost-single test_5: iozone failed" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-2817"><del>LU-2817</del></a>: our testing has not failed since <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5532" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5532</a> landed. </p> <p>Earlier encounter of this issue. </p> <p>Artem, are you actually hitting this with the 2.4.0 release code, or is this a 2.1 branch with the 4MB patch applied?</p> <p>Andreas, after we applied <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5532" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,5532</a> this problem is gone. Thanks!<br/> I think we can close this issue.</p> <p>Artem, in the future, if the problem being reported is not actually matching the release version as tagged in git please at a minimum include a description of the version (e.g. "git describe" in your tree, including the change numbers of relevant patches already applied) in the Environment section of the bug, and ideally a pointer to a git repo with the actual tree being tested.</p> <p>To file a bug marked "2.4.0" and described as "master branch" in June after the 2.4.0 release, but missing a patch that was actually landed to master in March before 2.3.62 tag makes it difficult for us to determine what the actual problem is. I'm glad that Keith could isolate this problem so quickly with the Maloo test logs, and that the patch fixed the problem for you, but for other bugs this may not be so easily done.</p> Related LU-2817 LU-1431 Development Rank 1|hzvsrr: Rank (Obsolete) 8566 Severity