On Feb 02, 2007 13:16 -0600, Kevin L. Buterbaugh wrote: > Sorry, meant to include that. Here's the relevant information from the > client (scnode01): > > Feb 2 12:48:15 scnode01 kernel: LustreError: > 16536:0:(client.c:576:ptlrpc_check_status()) @@@ type == > PTL_RPC_MSG_ERR, err == -19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] x13/t0 > o38->[EMAIL PROTECTED]@tcp:12 lens 240/272 ref 1 fl Rpc:R/0/0 rc 0/-19 > Feb 2 12:48:15 scnode01 kernel: LustreError: mdc_dev: The configuration > 'client' could not be read from the MDS 'mds-test'. This may be the > result of communication errors between the client and the MDS, or if the > MDS is not running.
Client couldn't connect to the MDS. -19 = -ENODEV > And from the MDS (lustrem): > > 3894:0:(client.c:940:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@ timeout (sent at > 1170442057, 5s ago) [EMAIL PROTECTED] x1/t0 > o8->[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6 lens 240/272 ref 1 fl Rpc:/0/0 rc 0/0 > Feb 2 12:48:07 lustrem kernel: LustreError: > 3894:0:(client.c:940:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@ timeout (sent at > 1170442082, 5s ago) [EMAIL PROTECTED] x4/t0 > o8->[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6 lens 240/272 ref 1 fl Rpc:/0/0 rc 0/0 > Feb 2 12:48:07 lustrem kernel: LustreError: These messages indicate failure to connect to the OSTs (op 8 = OST_CONNECT). What is in the OST syslog? Are you positive that /dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1 on the two nodes are set up the same way, so that e.g. lustre1+sda1 isn't talking to the same disk as lustre2+sdb1? Also minor nit - you don't need to have a partition table, it can hurt performance on some RAID setups because of the 512-byte offset of IOs due to the DOS partition table. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
