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-3575 Lustre <p>Hi,</p> <p>With Lustre 2.4, '--writeconf' flag of mkfs.lustre is ignored. Indeed, after formatting a target with this flag, its label separator is ':', which means VIRGIN, instead of '='.<br/> To force writeconf, one has to run 'tunefs.lustre --writeconf' on the target prior to starting it for the first time.</p> <p>This is seen as a regression compared to Lustre 2.1, with which we can directly pass the writeconf flag at mkfs.lustre time.</p> <p>We need this feature (ie forcing writeconf at mkfs time) when we reformat an existing file system registered at an external MGS after modifying its characteristics.</p> <p>Could it be possible to revise writeconf flag implementation in Lustre 2.4 so that it can be used directly at mkfs.lustre time?</p> <p>TIA,<br/> Sebastien.</p> LU-3575

'mkfs.lustre --writeconf' not working anymore with Lustre 2.4

Bug Major Resolved Duplicate Alex Zhuravlev Sebastien Buisson Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:20:32 +0000 Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:55:43 +0000 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:21:04 +0000 Lustre 2.4.0 0 12 <p>Alex,<br/> Could you please comment on this one?<br/> Thank you!</p> <p>Sebastien,<br/> could you try <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7232/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7232/</a> please ?</p> <p>Sebastien</p> <p>Any word as to whether this patch solves the problem for you?</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>Peter, Alex,<br/> Sébastien is out of his office for 2 weeks and will be back on next monday (august 19).<br/> Patrick</p> <p>Hi there,</p> <p>I can confirm that this patch (<a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7232/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7232/</a>) solves the problem for me.<br/> Is it possible to also have it on b2_4?</p> <p>TIA,<br/> Sebastien.</p> <p>If 'mkfs.lustre --writeconf' is flat broke, why didn't we catch this prior to 2.4.0?</p> <p>Hmm, I've made a patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/7443" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/7443</a> which adds the "mkfs.lustre --replace|-R" option that allows you to format a replacement OST in a single step. That is more intuitive IMHO than mkfs.lustre + tunefs.lustre --writeconf. </p> <p>yes, this approach looks better.</p> <p>Well, this is getting complicated.</p> <p>Why adding another flag to do this? If you do not want writeconf to have precedence over virgin by default, I would suggest to modify the already existing '--reformat' flag so that it unsets the LDD_F_VIRGIN flag. Additionally, it looks like LDD_F_WRITECONF should be set at the same time, otherwise the MGS may refuse registration of the target.</p> <p>Moreover, it should be documented somewhere that '--writeconf' flag of mkfs.lustre is ignored starting with 2.4.</p> <p>What do you think?</p> <p>Sebastien.</p> <p>The main reason for having a separate flag from <tt>&#45;&#45;reformat</tt> (which is setting <tt>VIRGIN</tt> exactly <em>because</em> it is a new filesystem) is that there is some chance of the admin making a mistake assigning the OST index, and then we may have two OSTs with the same index. If the <tt>&#45;&#45;reformat</tt> (with <tt>VIRGIN</tt>) OST connects to the MGS and it has a duplicate index it will get an error back. It takes an extra flag (<tt>&#45;&#45;replace</tt>) to indicate that the admin knows that this just-reformatted OST is replacing the previous OST at the same index.</p> <p>Hi,</p> <p>I have tested the patch at <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/7443" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/7443</a>.</p> <p>For us it does the trick. Now, when we need to reformat a new target to replace an existing one, we use '&#45;&#45;reformat &#45;&#45;replace' instead of '&#45;&#45;reformat &#45;&#45;writeconf'.</p> <p>Thanks!<br/> Sebastien.</p> <p>Great! So, that patch has landed for 2.5.0 so it sound like this ticket can be closed</p> <p>Would it be possible to please have the patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/7443" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/7443</a> landed to 2.4 too?</p> <p>Of course - when we start thinking about 2.4.2 this will definitely be under consideration.</p> Related LU-14 Development Rank 1|hzvv3r: Rank (Obsolete) 9043 Severity