Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS

Luis Bolinches Wed, 23 Oct 2019 02:58:07 -0700

The doc is right. The testing acceptance would be a testing environment if you really want end to end testing. Assuming you have the CES nodes on different Spectrum Scale cluster, nothing stops you from have another Spectrum Scale cluster for the new CES code level (different IPs for serving)

--
Ystävällisin terveisin / Kind regards / Saludos cordiales / Salutations
Luis Bolinches
Certified Consultant IT Specialist
Mobile Phone: +358503112585
https://www.youracclaim.com/user/luis-bolinches

"If you always give you will always have" -- Anonymous

----- Original message -----
From: "Talamo Ivano Giuseppe (PSI)" <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 12:49 PM

Dear all,

We are actually in the process of upgrading our CES cluster to 5.0.3-3 but we have doubts about how to proceed.
Considering that the CES cluster is in production and heavily used, our plan is to add a new node with 5.0.3-3 to the cluster that is currently 5.0.2.1.

And we would like to proceed in a cautious way, so that the new node would not take any IP and just one day per week (when we will declare to be “at risk”) we would move some IPs to it. After some weeks of tests if we would see no problem we would upgrade the rest of the cluster.

But reading these doc [1] it seems that we cannot have multiple GPFS/SMB version in the same cluster. So in that case we could not have a testing/acceptance phase but could only make the full blind jump. Can someone confirm or negate this?

Thanks,
Ivano

[1] https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.2/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r02.doc/bl1ins_updatingsmb.htm

On 04.10.19, 12:55, "[email protected] on behalf of Malahal R Naineni" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

   You can use 5.0.3.3 . There is no fix for the sssd issue yet though. I will work with Ganesha upstream community pretty soon.

   Regards, Malahal.

   ----- Original message -----
   From: Leonardo Sala <[email protected]>
   To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>, "Malahal R Naineni" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
   Cc:
   Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
   Date: Fri, Oct 4, 2019 12:02 PM

   Dear Malahal,
   thanks for the answer. Concerning SSSD, we are also using it, should we use 5.0.2-PTF3? We would like to avoid using 5.0.2.2, as it has issues with recent RHEL 7.6 kernels [*] and we are impacted: do you suggest to use 5.0.3.3?
   cheers
   leo

   [*] https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-spectrum-scale-gpfs-releases-42313-or-later-and-5022-or-later-have-issues-where-kernel-crashes-rhel76-0
   Paul Scherrer Institut
   Dr. Leonardo Sala
   Group Leader High Performance Computing
   Deputy Section Head Science IT
   Science IT
   WHGA/106
   5232 Villigen PSI
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 56 310 3369
   [email protected]
   www.psi.ch <http://www.psi.ch >
   On 03.10.19 19:15, Malahal R Naineni wrote:
   >> @Malahal: Looks like you have written the netgroup caching code, feel free to ask for further details if required.

   Hi Ulrich, Ganesha uses innetgr() call for netgroup information and sssd has too many issues in its implementation. Redhat said that they are going to fix sssd synchronization issues in RHEL8. It is in my plate to serialize innergr() call in Ganesha to
   match kernel NFS server usage! I expect the sssd issue to give EACCESS/EPERM kind of issue but not EINVAL though.

   If you are using sssd, you must be getting into a sssd issue. Ganesha has a host-ip cache fix in 5.0.2 PTF3. Please make sure you use ganesha version V2.5.3-ibm030.01 if you are using netgroups (shipped with 5.0.2 PTF3 but can be used with Scale 5.0.1
   or later)

   Regards, Malahal.



   ----- Original message -----
   From: Ulrich Sibiller
   <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
   Sent by:
   [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
   To: [email protected]
   Cc:
   Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
   Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2018 7:32 PM

   On 23.11.2018 14:41, Andreas Mattsson wrote:
   > Yes, this is repeating.
   >
   > We’ve ascertained that it has nothing to do at all with file operations on the GPFS side.
   >
   > Randomly throughout the filesystem mounted via NFS, ls or file access will give
   >
   > ”
   >
   > > ls: reading directory /gpfs/filessystem/test/testdir: Invalid argument
   >
   > “
   >
   > Trying again later might work on that folder, but might fail somewhere else.
   >
   > We have tried exporting the same filesystem via a standard kernel NFS instead of the CES
   > Ganesha-NFS, and then the problem doesn’t exist.
   >
   > So it is definitely related to the Ganesha NFS server, or its interaction with the file system.
   > > Will see if I can get a tcpdump of the issue.

   We see this, too. We cannot trigger it. Fortunately I have managed to capture some logs with
   debugging enabled. I have now dug into the ganesha 2.5.3 code and I think the netgroup caching is
   the culprit.

   Here some FULL_DEBUG output:
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
   export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :Check for address 1.2.3.4 for export id 1 path /gpfsexport
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
   :EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcf7fe0 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup1 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
   3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
   :DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
   :EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcfe320 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup2 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
   3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
   :DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
   :EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcfe380 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup3 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
   3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
   :DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
   export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :EXPORT (options=03303002 , , ,
   , , -- Deleg, , )
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
   export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :EXPORT_DEFAULTS (options=42102002root_squash , ----, 3--, ---,
   TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , , anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
   export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :default options (options=03303002root_squash , ----, 34-, UDP,
   TCP, ----, No Manage_Gids, -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, none, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
   export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :Final options (options=42102002root_squash , ----, 3--, ---,
   TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
   2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_rpc_execute
   :DISP :INFO :DISP: INFO: Client ::ffff:1.2.3.4 is not allowed to access Export_Id 1 /gpfsexport,
   vers=3, proc=18

   The client "client1" is definitely a member of the "netgroup1". But the NETGROUP_CLIENT lookups for
   "netgroup2" and "netgroup3" can only happen if the netgroup caching code reports that "client1" is
   NOT a member of "netgroup1".

   I have also opened a support case at IBM for this.

   @Malahal: Looks like you have written the netgroup caching code, feel free to ask for further
   details if required.

   Kind regards,

   Ulrich Sibiller

   --
   Dipl.-Inf. Ulrich Sibiller science + computing ag
   System Administration Hagellocher Weg 73
   72070 Tuebingen, Germany

   https://atos.net/de/deutschland/sc  <https://atos.net/de/deutschland/sc >
   --
   Science + Computing AG
   Vorstandsvorsitzender/Chairman of the board of management:
   Dr. Martin Matzke
   Vorstand/Board of Management:
   Matthias Schempp, Sabine Hohenstein
   Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/
   Chairman of the Supervisory Board:
   Philippe Miltin
   Aufsichtsrat/Supervisory Board:
   Martin Wibbe, Ursula Morgenstern
   Sitz/Registered Office: Tuebingen
   Registergericht/Registration Court: Stuttgart
   Registernummer/Commercial Register No.: HRB 382196
   _______________________________________________
   gpfsug-discuss mailing list
   gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
   http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss





   _______________________________________________
   gpfsug-discuss mailing list
   gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
   http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss









_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

Ellei edellä ole toisin mainittu: / Unless stated otherwise above:
Oy IBM Finland Ab
PL 265, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
Business ID, Y-tunnus: 0195876-3
Registered in Finland

_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS

Reply via email to