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-6463 Lustre <p>This issue was created by maloo for sarah &lt;sarah@whamcloud.com&gt;</p> <p>This issue relates to the following test suite run: <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c3a03092-dfb8-11e4-b5b0-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c3a03092-dfb8-11e4-b5b0-5254006e85c2</a>.</p> <p>The sub-test test_1c failed with the following error:</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed </pre> </div></div> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>== ost-pools test 1c: Create a pool with a 16 character pool name == 04:23:32 (1428665012) CMD: onyx-39vm3 lctl pool_new lustre.testpool12345678 onyx-39vm3: poolname testpool12345678 is too long (length is 16 max is 15) onyx-39vm3: argument lustre.testpool12345678 must be &lt;fsname&gt;.&lt;poolname&gt; onyx-39vm3: pool_new: File name too long ost-pools test_1c: @@@@@@ FAIL: Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed Trace dump: </pre> </div></div> <p>Info required for matching: ost-pools 1c<br/> Info required for matching: ost-pools 7b</p> server: lustre-master build#2983<br/> client: 2.5.3 LU-6463

Interop 2.5.3<->master ost-pools test_1c: Pool creation of testpool12345678 failed

Bug Minor Closed Won't Fix WC Triage Maloo Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:15:18 +0000 Fri, 2 Nov 2018 00:28:46 +0000 Fri, 2 Nov 2018 00:28:46 +0000 Lustre 2.8.0 Lustre 2.5.5 0 9 <p>This is fallout from "<a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-6081" title="hsm: add file migrate support" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-6081">LU-6081</a> lfs: check that pool name is not too long" patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/13241" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/13241</a> that reduced the maximum pool name length from 16 to 15. This is mostly just a test script failure and would need a patch on b2_5 to pass.</p> <p>Another instance for following interop config<br/> Server: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 <br/> Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c973016e-9fcc-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/c973016e-9fcc-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 6.7<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/a9b9c352-a04a-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/a9b9c352-a04a-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Server: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 7 <br/> Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/094a96c0-a000-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/094a96c0-a000-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 , RHEL 7 <br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1eed362c-a05f-11e5-90cc-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1eed362c-a05f-11e5-90cc-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop : EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client<br/> Server: master, build# 3303, RHEL 6.7<br/> Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/36ee4ee6-bad6-11e5-9137-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/36ee4ee6-bad6-11e5-9137-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop : 2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client<br/> Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> Client: master, build# 3303, RHEL 6.7<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1433717a-bb25-11e5-861c-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/1433717a-bb25-11e5-861c-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop : EL7 Server/2.5.5 Client<br/> Server: master, build# 3303, RHEL 7<br/> Client: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/edd273e2-bad8-11e5-b3d5-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/edd273e2-bad8-11e5-b3d5-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop : 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client<br/> Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62<br/> Client: master, build# 3303, RHEL 7<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/826ec7d6-bb0a-11e5-87b4-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/826ec7d6-bb0a-11e5-87b4-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 - EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client, build# 3316<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/d5d81872-cc9f-11e5-963e-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/d5d81872-cc9f-11e5-963e-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 -2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client, build# 3316<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/2fc2aace-ccf9-11e5-b1fa-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/2fc2aace-ccf9-11e5-b1fa-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Another instance found for interop tag 2.7.66 - 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client, build# 3316<br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/5af65186-ccc8-11e5-b80c-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/5af65186-ccc8-11e5-b80c-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>The sanity-lfsck interop problems are unrelated to this ticket I think? In any case, we have completely disabled interop testing with lfsck (see <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-7144" title="Interop 2.7.0&lt;-&gt;master- sanity-scrub test_14: (6) Some entry under /lost+found should be repaired" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-7144"><del>LU-7144</del></a>) because this is purely server-side functionality and there isn't any value testing this with different client versions.</p> <p>As previously mentioned, the ost-pools test failure is due to<br/> <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/13241" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/13241</a> and will continue to fail interop testing until that patch is landed to 2.5.x or the tests are skipped.</p> <p>Another instance found for interop - EL6.7 Server/2.5.5 Client, tag 2.7.90. <br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/f99a2d60-d567-11e5-bc47-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/f99a2d60-d567-11e5-bc47-5254006e85c2</a><br/> Another instance found for interop - 2.5.5 Server/EL6.7 Client, tag 2.7.90. <br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/e16b8c0c-d634-11e5-82a0-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/e16b8c0c-d634-11e5-82a0-5254006e85c2</a><br/> Another instance found for interop - EL7 Server/2.5.5 Client, tag 2.7.90. <br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/93baffee-d2ae-11e5-8697-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/93baffee-d2ae-11e5-8697-5254006e85c2</a><br/> Another instance found for interop - 2.5.5 Server/EL7 Client, tag 2.7.90. <br/> <a href="https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/ba9d84fe-d300-11e5-be5c-5254006e85c2" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/ba9d84fe-d300-11e5-be5c-5254006e85c2</a></p> <p>Is this still a problem?</p> Duplicate LU-5906 Related LU-7144 LU-7155 LU-6081 Development Rank 1|hzxapz: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 Severity