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-921 Lustre <p>"NASA/AMES is asking for the ability to be able to tell users which files may be suspect after an<br/> adverse cluster event; panics, hangs, client evictions, etc.</p> <p>One example that may be easier than others is when a client is evicted and the client is forced to<br/> toss dirty pages of open files. The site has been experimenting with a way to list the inode<br/> numbers on the mds with the associated pages tossed on the clients. I'll leave it to them to<br/> discuss here.<br/> " &#8211; from Oracle BZ 21812.</p> <p>Oracle has released a patch (attachment 33114.) It affected client side. We like Whamcloud to include this patch for 1.8.x and 2.1.x.</p> sles10sp3, sles11sp1, centos5.6, centos6 LU-921

generate warnings in case of discarding dirty pages

Bug Minor Resolved Fixed Hongchao Zhang Jay Lan Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:10:04 +0000 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:15:43 +0000 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:15:43 +0000 Lustre 1.8.x (1.8.0 - 1.8.5) Lustre 2.4.0 Lustre 2.1.4 0 5 <p>Hongchao</p> <p>Could you please look at what would be required to provide this capability in a Whamcloud release. The current approach needs several adjustments. Please talk to Johann for details.</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>I cherry-picked Oracle's patch for our nas-1.8.6 branch without a problem. But, the patch applied to code that do not exist in 2.1. </p> <p>Our Lustre system admin consider this a very useful feature to them and we need your expertise to port the feature to 2.1. Thanks!</p> <p>status update:<br/> the patch is under creating and test.</p> <p>the patch is tracked at <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,1908" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,1908</a></p> <p>There is no activity on this LU for almost 6 months. This fix is very important to use. Could you upgrade the priority? Thanks!</p> <p>Jay</p> <p>I will take this up with you offline</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>the updated patch has been pushed to Gerrit</p> <p>Jay</p> <p>Can you please confirm whether the patch meets your needs?</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>Hi Peter, certainly will do. Thanks~</p> <p>I cherry-picked the patch into b2_1 branch. It was done cleanly. However, compilation failed:<br/> /usr/src/packages/BUILD/lustre-2.1.3/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c:2256: error: 'OBD_IOC_GETDTNAME' undeclared (first use in this function)</p> <p>the OBD_IOC_GETDTNAME is introduced by "http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,1646" in <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-819" title="&quot;lfs getstripe -M&quot; broken" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-819"><del>LU-819</del></a>, did you apply that patch to b2_1?</p> <p>this patch needs ll_get_fsname redefined in <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/2025" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/2025</a> &amp;&amp; <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,3704" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,3704</a></p> <p>I have created a updated patch containing these missing stuff in b2_1, pls refs the attachment</p> <p>I provide our Lustre group the new rpms and ask for feedback.</p> <p>Why is recovery-small test 24 ALWAYS_EXCEPT?</p> <p>I think we can remove it from the ALWAYS_EXCEPT.</p> <p>The test result looks good!</p> <p>Can you make changes to remove test "24" from ALWAYS_EXCEPT as part of the patch? Thanks!</p> <p>Jay that is really a separate issue and should be tracked as such. Could you please open a separate ticket to track the issue about test 24? Thanks!</p> <p>Peter, a new test case recovery-small 24b was created to test this issue as part of the patch. That was how I discovered that test_24<span class="error">&#91;ab&#93;</span> were skipped.</p> <p>Let me know if you want to fix that in this case, since recovery-small.sh is modified anyway, or you want me to open a new case. I am fine either way.</p> <p>Ah sorry - I did not realize that. In that case I will defer to Hongchao to comment.</p> <p>Yes, this test is put into ALWAYS_EXCEPT in bz5494, and I tested it under master and b2_1, both passed locally,<br/> I'll try to create a patch to remove it from A_E, and check whether it pass or not in Toro.</p> <p>the patch is tracked at <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,4443" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,4443</a></p> <p>Port for b2_1 is here <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,4716" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,4716</a>. I combine the two related patches into a single one.</p> <p>Landed for 2.1.4 and 2.4</p> Related LU-2505 Bugzilla ID 21812.0 Development Rank 1|hzvbjj: Rank (Obsolete) 5412 Severity