Hi, i just want to know whether there are any alternative file systems for HP SFS. I heard that there is Cluster Gateway from Polyserve. Can anybody plz help me in finding more abt this Cluster Gateway.
Thanks and Regards, Ashok Bharat -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 2/12/2008 11:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 19 Send Lustre-discuss mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Lustre-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: multihomed clients ignoring lnet options (Cliff White) 2. Re: multihomed clients ignoring lnet options (Joe Little) 3. Re: multihomed clients ignoring lnet options (Steden Klaus) 4. Re: Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17 (ashok bharat bayana) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:00:10 -0800 From: Cliff White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] multihomed clients ignoring lnet options To: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Aaron Knister wrote: > I believe that's correct. The nids of the various server components > are stored on the filesystem itself. Yes, and you can always see them with tunefs.lustre --print <device> cliffw > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Joe Little wrote: > >> never mind.. The problem was resolved by recreating again the MGS and >> the OST's using the same parameters on the server. I was able to >> change the parameters and still have the servers working, but my guess >> is that those options are permanently etched into the filesystem. >> >> >> On Feb 9, 2008 8:16 PM, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I have all of my servers and clients using eth1 for the tcp lustre >>> lnet. >>> >>> All have modprobe.conf entries of: >>> >>> options lnet networks="tcp0(eth1)" >>> >>> and all report with "lctl list_nids" that they are using the IP >>> address associated with that interface (a net 192.168.200.x address) >>> >>> However, when my client connects, it ignores the above and goes with >>> eth0 for routing, even though the mds/mgs is on that network range: >>> >>> client dmesg: >>> >>> Lustre: 4756:0:(module.c:382:init_libcfs_module()) maximum lustre >>> stack 8192 >>> Lustre: Added LNI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [8/256] >>> Lustre: Accept secure, port 988 >>> Lustre: OBD class driver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Lustre Version: 1.6.4.2 >>> Build Version: >>> 1.6.4.2-19691231190000-PRISTINE-.cache.build.BUILD.lustre- >>> kernel-2.6.9.lustre.linux-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL_lustre.1.6.4.2smp >>> Lustre: Lustre Client File System; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> LustreError: 4799:0:(socklnd_cb.c:2167:ksocknal_recv_hello()) Error >>> -104 reading HELLO from 192.168.2.201 >>> LustreError: 11b-b: Connection to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at host >>> 192.168.2.201 on port 988 was reset: is it running a compatible >>> version of Lustre and is [EMAIL PROTECTED] one of its NIDs? >>> >>> server dmesg: >>> LustreError: 120-3: Refusing connection from 192.168.2.192 for >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No matching NI >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > Aaron Knister > Associate Systems Analyst > Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies > > (301) 595-7000 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:51:20 -0800 From: "Joe Little" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] multihomed clients ignoring lnet options To: "Cliff White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Feb 11, 2008 8:00 PM, Cliff White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Knister wrote: > > I believe that's correct. The nids of the various server components > > are stored on the filesystem itself. > > Yes, and you can always see them with > tunefs.lustre --print <device> > > cliffw anyone to change them after the fact? > > > > > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Joe Little wrote: > > > >> never mind.. The problem was resolved by recreating again the MGS and > >> the OST's using the same parameters on the server. I was able to > >> change the parameters and still have the servers working, but my guess > >> is that those options are permanently etched into the filesystem. > >> > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2008 8:16 PM, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I have all of my servers and clients using eth1 for the tcp lustre > >>> lnet. > >>> > >>> All have modprobe.conf entries of: > >>> > >>> options lnet networks="tcp0(eth1)" > >>> > >>> and all report with "lctl list_nids" that they are using the IP > >>> address associated with that interface (a net 192.168.200.x address) > >>> > >>> However, when my client connects, it ignores the above and goes with > >>> eth0 for routing, even though the mds/mgs is on that network range: > >>> > >>> client dmesg: > >>> > >>> Lustre: 4756:0:(module.c:382:init_libcfs_module()) maximum lustre > >>> stack 8192 > >>> Lustre: Added LNI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [8/256] > >>> Lustre: Accept secure, port 988 > >>> Lustre: OBD class driver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Lustre Version: 1.6.4.2 > >>> Build Version: > >>> 1.6.4.2-19691231190000-PRISTINE-.cache.build.BUILD.lustre- > >>> kernel-2.6.9.lustre.linux-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL_lustre.1.6.4.2smp > >>> Lustre: Lustre Client File System; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> LustreError: 4799:0:(socklnd_cb.c:2167:ksocknal_recv_hello()) Error > >>> -104 reading HELLO from 192.168.2.201 > >>> LustreError: 11b-b: Connection to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at host > >>> 192.168.2.201 on port 988 was reset: is it running a compatible > >>> version of Lustre and is [EMAIL PROTECTED] one of its NIDs? > >>> > >>> server dmesg: > >>> LustreError: 120-3: Refusing connection from 192.168.2.192 for > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No matching NI > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lustre-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > Aaron Knister > > Associate Systems Analyst > > Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies > > > > (301) 595-7000 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lustre-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:53:41 -0800 From: "Steden Klaus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] multihomed clients ignoring lnet options To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" If you have root, you can change them using tunefs.lustre after the file system has been shut down. I've done this a number of times to test various lnet configs. Klaus ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cliff White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Feb 11 20:51:20 2008 Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] multihomed clients ignoring lnet options On Feb 11, 2008 8:00 PM, Cliff White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Knister wrote: > > I believe that's correct. The nids of the various server components > > are stored on the filesystem itself. > > Yes, and you can always see them with > tunefs.lustre --print <device> > > cliffw anyone to change them after the fact? > > > > > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Joe Little wrote: > > > >> never mind.. The problem was resolved by recreating again the MGS and > >> the OST's using the same parameters on the server. I was able to > >> change the parameters and still have the servers working, but my guess > >> is that those options are permanently etched into the filesystem. > >> > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2008 8:16 PM, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I have all of my servers and clients using eth1 for the tcp lustre > >>> lnet. > >>> > >>> All have modprobe.conf entries of: > >>> > >>> options lnet networks="tcp0(eth1)" > >>> > >>> and all report with "lctl list_nids" that they are using the IP > >>> address associated with that interface (a net 192.168.200.x address) > >>> > >>> However, when my client connects, it ignores the above and goes with > >>> eth0 for routing, even though the mds/mgs is on that network range: > >>> > >>> client dmesg: > >>> > >>> Lustre: 4756:0:(module.c:382:init_libcfs_module()) maximum lustre > >>> stack 8192 > >>> Lustre: Added LNI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [8/256] > >>> Lustre: Accept secure, port 988 > >>> Lustre: OBD class driver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Lustre Version: 1.6.4.2 > >>> Build Version: > >>> 1.6.4.2-19691231190000-PRISTINE-.cache.build.BUILD.lustre- > >>> kernel-2.6.9.lustre.linux-2.6.9-55.0.9.EL_lustre.1.6.4.2smp > >>> Lustre: Lustre Client File System; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> LustreError: 4799:0:(socklnd_cb.c:2167:ksocknal_recv_hello()) Error > >>> -104 reading HELLO from 192.168.2.201 > >>> LustreError: 11b-b: Connection to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at host > >>> 192.168.2.201 on port 988 was reset: is it running a compatible > >>> version of Lustre and is [EMAIL PROTECTED] one of its NIDs? > >>> > >>> server dmesg: > >>> LustreError: 120-3: Refusing connection from 192.168.2.192 for > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No matching NI > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lustre-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > Aaron Knister > > Associate Systems Analyst > > Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies > > > > (301) 595-7000 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lustre-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:15:18 +0530 From: "ashok bharat bayana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17 To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, i just want to know whether there are any alternative file systems for HP SFS. I heard that there is Cluster Gateway from Polyserve. Can anybody plz help me in finding more abt this Cluster Gateway. Thanks and Regards, Ashok Bharat -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 2/12/2008 3:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17 Send Lustre-discuss mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Lustre-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Benchmarking Lustre (Marty Barnaby) 2. Re: Luster clients getting evicted (Aaron Knister) 3. Re: Luster clients getting evicted (Tom.Wang) 4. Re: Luster clients getting evicted (Craig Prescott) 5. Re: rc -43: Identifier removed (Andreas Dilger) 6. Re: Luster clients getting evicted (Brock Palen) 7. Re: Luster clients getting evicted (Aaron Knister) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:25:48 -0700 From: "Marty Barnaby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Benchmarking Lustre To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Do you have any special interests, like: writing from a true MPI job; collective vs. independent; one-file-per-processor vs. a single, share file; or writing via MPI-IO vs. posix? Marty Barnaby mayur bhosle wrote: > hi everyone, > > I am a student at Georgia Tech university, and > as a part of a project i need to benchmark lustre file system. I did a > lot of searching regarding > the possible benchmark, but i need some advice on which benchmarks > would be more suitable... if any one can post a sugesstion that would > be really helpful....................... > > thanks in advance ............ > > Mayur ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:16:20 -0500 From: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Luster clients getting evicted To: Tom.Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes I'm having a similar issue with lustre 1.6.4.2 and infiniband. Under load, the clients hand about every 10 minutes which is really bad for a production machine. The only way to fix the hang is to reboot the server. My users are getting extremely impatient :-/ I see this on the clients- LustreError: 2814:0:(client.c:975:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@ timeout (sent at 1202756629, 301s ago) [EMAIL PROTECTED] x1796079/ t0 o6->[EMAIL PROTECTED]@o2ib:28 lens 336/336 ref 1 fl Rpc:/0/0 rc 0/-22 Lustre: data-OST0000-osc-ffff810139ce4800: Connection to service data- OST0000 via nid [EMAIL PROTECTED] was lost; in progress operations using this service will wait for recovery to complete. LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 I've increased the timeout to 300seconds and it has helped marginally. -Aaron On Feb 9, 2008, at 12:06 AM, Tom.Wang wrote: > Hi, > Aha, this is bug has been fixed in 14360. > > https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14360 > > The patch there should fix your problem, which should be released in > 1.6.5 > > Thanks > > Brock Palen wrote: >> Sure, Attached, note though, we rebuilt our lustre source for >> another >> box that uses the largesmp kernel. but it used the same options and >> compiler. >> >> >> Brock Palen >> Center for Advanced Computing >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> (734)936-1985 >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Tom.Wang wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> m45_amp214_om D 0000000000000000 0 2587 1 31389 >>> 2586 (NOTLB) >>> 00000101f6b435f8 0000000000000006 000001022c7fc030 0000000000000001 >>> 00000100080f1a40 0000000000000246 00000101f6b435a8 >>> 0000000380136025 >>> 00000102270a1030 00000000000000d0 >>> Call Trace:<ffffffffa0216e79>{:lnet:LNetPut+1689} >>> <ffffffff8030e45f>{__down+147} >>> <ffffffff80134659>{default_wake_function+0} >>> <ffffffff8030ff7d>{__down_failed+53} >>> <ffffffffa04292e1>{:lustre:.text.lock.file+5} >>> <ffffffffa044b12e>{:lustre:ll_mdc_blocking_ast+798} >>> <ffffffffa02c8eb8>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_resource_get+456} >>> <ffffffffa02c3bbb>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_cancel_callback+107} >>> <ffffffffa02da615>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_cli_cancel_local+213} >>> <ffffffffa02c3c48>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_lock_addref_internal_nolock+56} >>> <ffffffffa02c3dbc>{:ptlrpc:search_queue+284} >>> <ffffffffa02dbc03>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_cancel_list+99} >>> <ffffffffa02dc113>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_cancel_lru_local+915} >>> <ffffffffa02ca293>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_resource_putref+435} >>> <ffffffffa02dc2c9>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_prep_enqueue_req+313} >>> <ffffffffa0394e6f>{:mdc:mdc_enqueue+1023} >>> <ffffffffa02c1035>{:ptlrpc:lock_res_and_lock+53} >>> <ffffffffa0268730>{:obdclass:class_handle2object+224} >>> <ffffffffa02c5fea>{:ptlrpc:__ldlm_handle2lock+794} >>> <ffffffffa02c106f>{:ptlrpc:unlock_res_and_lock+31} >>> <ffffffffa02c5c03>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_lock_decref_internal+595} >>> <ffffffffa02c156c>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_lock_add_to_lru+140} >>> <ffffffffa02c1035>{:ptlrpc:lock_res_and_lock+53} >>> <ffffffffa02c6f0a>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_lock_decref+154} >>> <ffffffffa039617d>{:mdc:mdc_intent_lock+685} >>> <ffffffffa044ae10>{:lustre:ll_mdc_blocking_ast+0} >>> <ffffffffa02d85f0>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_completion_ast+0} >>> <ffffffffa044ae10>{:lustre:ll_mdc_blocking_ast+0} >>> <ffffffffa02d85f0>{:ptlrpc:ldlm_completion_ast+0} >>> <ffffffffa044b64b>{:lustre:ll_prepare_mdc_op_data+139} >>> <ffffffffa0418a32>{:lustre:ll_intent_file_open+450} >>> <ffffffffa044ae10>{:lustre:ll_mdc_blocking_ast+0} >>> <ffffffff80192006>{__d_lookup+287} >>> <ffffffffa0419724>{:lustre:ll_file_open+2100} >>> <ffffffffa0428a18>{:lustre:ll_inode_permission+184} >>> <ffffffff80179bdb>{sys_access+349} >>> <ffffffff8017a1ee>{__dentry_open+201} >>> <ffffffff8017a3a9>{filp_open+95} >>> <ffffffff80179bdb>{sys_access+349} >>> <ffffffff801f00b5>{strncpy_from_user+74} >>> <ffffffff8017a598>{sys_open+57} >>> <ffffffff8011026a>{system_call+126} >>> >>> It seems blocking_ast process was blocked here. Could you dump the >>> lustre/llite/namei.o by objdump -S lustre/llite/namei.o and send >>> to me? >>> >>> Thanks >>> WangDi >>> >>> Brock Palen wrote: >>>>>> On Feb 7, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Tom.Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> MDT dmesg: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LustreError: 9042:0:(ldlm_lib.c:1442:target_send_reply_msg()) >>>>>>>> @@@ processing error (-107) [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> 52b000 x445020/t0 o400-><?>@<?>:-1 lens 128/0 ref 0 fl >>>>>>>> Interpret:/0/0 rc -107/0 >>>>>>>> LustreError: 0:0:(ldlm_lockd.c:210:waiting_locks_callback()) >>>>>>>> ### >>>>>>>> lock callback timer expired: evicting cl >>>>>>>> ient >>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> nid [EMAIL PROTECTED] ns: mds-nobackup >>>>>>>> -MDT0000_UUID lock: 00000100476df240/0xbc269e05c512de3a lrc: >>>>>>>> 1/0,0 mode: CR/CR res: 11240142/324715850 bi >>>>>>>> ts 0x5 rrc: 2 type: IBT flags: 20 remote: 0x4e54bc800174cd08 >>>>>>>> expref: 372 pid 26925 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The client was evicted because of this lock can not be released >>>>>>> on client >>>>>>> on time. Could you provide the stack strace of client at that >>>>>>> time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I assume increase obd_timeout could fix your problem. Then maybe >>>>>>> you should wait 1.6.5 released, including a new feature >>>>>>> adaptive_timeout, >>>>>>> which will adjust the timeout value according to the network >>>>>>> congestion >>>>>>> and server load. And it should help your problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Waiting for the next version of lustre might be the best >>>>>> thing. I >>>>>> had upped the timeout a few days back but the next day i had >>>>>> errors on the MDS box. I have switched it back: >>>>>> >>>>>> lctl conf_param nobackup-MDT0000.sys.timeout=300 >>>>>> >>>>>> I would love to give you that trace but I don't know how to get >>>>>> it. Is there a debug option to turn on in the clients? >>>>> You can get that by echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger on client. >>>>> >>>> Cool command, output of the client is attached. The four >>>> processes >>>> m45_amp214_om, is the application that hung when working off of >>>> luster. you can see its stuck in IO state. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lustre-discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss Aaron Knister Associate Systems Analyst Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (301) 595-7000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:04:05 -0500 From: "Tom.Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Luster clients getting evicted To: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Aaron Knister wrote: > I'm having a similar issue with lustre 1.6.4.2 and infiniband. Under > load, the clients hand about every 10 minutes which is really bad for > a production machine. The only way to fix the hang is to reboot the > server. My users are getting extremely impatient :-/ > > I see this on the clients- > > LustreError: 2814:0:(client.c:975:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@ > timeout (sent at 1202756629, 301s ago) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > x1796079/t0 o6->[EMAIL PROTECTED]@o2ib:28 lens 336/336 > ref 1 fl Rpc:/0/0 rc 0/-22 It means OST could not response the request(unlink, o6) in 300 seconds, so client disconnect the import to OST and try to reconnect. Does this disconnection always happened when do unlink ? Could you please post process trace and console msg of OST at that time? Thanks WangDi > Lustre: data-OST0000-osc-ffff810139ce4800: Connection to service > data-OST0000 via nid [EMAIL PROTECTED] was lost; in progress > operations using this service will wait for recovery to complete. > LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 > LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 > > I've increased the timeout to 300seconds and it has helped marginally. > > -Aaron > > > > > > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:19:21 -0500 From: Craig Prescott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Luster clients getting evicted To: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tom.Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Aaron Knister wrote: > I'm having a similar issue with lustre 1.6.4.2 and infiniband. Under > load, the clients hand about every 10 minutes which is really bad for > a production machine. The only way to fix the hang is to reboot the > server. My users are getting extremely impatient :-/ > > I see this on the clients- > > LustreError: 2814:0:(client.c:975:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@ > timeout (sent at 1202756629, 301s ago) [EMAIL PROTECTED] x1796079/ > t0 o6->[EMAIL PROTECTED]@o2ib:28 lens 336/336 ref 1 fl > Rpc:/0/0 rc 0/-22 > Lustre: data-OST0000-osc-ffff810139ce4800: Connection to service data- > OST0000 via nid [EMAIL PROTECTED] was lost; in progress operations > using this service will wait for recovery to complete. > LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 > LustreError: 11-0: an error occurred while communicating with > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ost_connect operation failed with -16 > > I've increased the timeout to 300seconds and it has helped marginally. Hi Aaron; We set the timeout a big number (1000secs) on our 400 node cluster (mostly o2ib, some tcp clients). Until we did this, we had loads of evictions. In our case, it solved the problem. Cheers, Craig ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:11:45 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] rc -43: Identifier removed To: Per Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Lustre Discuss <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Feb 11, 2008 17:04 +0100, Per Lundqvist wrote: > I got this error today when testing a newly set up 1.6 filesystem: > > n50 1% cd /mnt/test > n50 2% ls > ls: reading directory .: Identifier removed > > n50 3% ls -alrt > total 8 > ?--------- ? ? ? ? ? dir1 > ?--------- ? ? ? ? ? dir2 > drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 8 15:46 ../ > drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 11 15:11 ./ > > n50 4% stat . > File: `.' > Size: 4096 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory > Device: b438c888h/-1271347064d Inode: 27616681 Links: 2 > Access: (0755/drwxr-xr-x) Uid: ( 1120/ faxen) Gid: ( 500/ nsc) > Access: 2008-02-11 16:11:48.336621154 +0100 > Modify: 2008-02-11 15:11:27.000000000 +0100 > Change: 2008-02-11 15:11:31.352841294 +0100 > > this seems to be happen almost all the time when I am running as a > specific user on this system. Note that the stat call always works... I > haven't yet been able to reproduce this problem when running as my own > user. EIDRM (Identifier removed) means that your MDS has a user database (/etc/passwd and /etc/group) that is missing the particular user ID. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:17:37 -0500 From: Brock Palen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Luster clients getting evicted To: Craig Prescott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tom.Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed >> I've increased the timeout to 300seconds and it has helped >> marginally. > > Hi Aaron; > > We set the timeout a big number (1000secs) on our 400 node cluster > (mostly o2ib, some tcp clients). Until we did this, we had loads > of evictions. In our case, it solved the problem. This feels excessive. But at this point I guess Ill try it. > > Cheers, > Craig > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:48:05 -0500 From: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Luster clients getting evicted To: Brock Palen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tom.Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes So far it's helped. If this doesn't fix it I'm going to apply the patch mentioned here - https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=14006&action=edit I'll let you know how it goes. If you'd like a copy of the patched version let me know. Are you running RHEL/SLES? what version of the OS and lustre? -Aaron On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Brock Palen wrote: >>> I've increased the timeout to 300seconds and it has helped >>> marginally. >> >> Hi Aaron; >> >> We set the timeout a big number (1000secs) on our 400 node cluster >> (mostly o2ib, some tcp clients). Until we did this, we had loads >> of evictions. In our case, it solved the problem. > > This feels excessive. But at this point I guess Ill try it. > >> >> Cheers, >> Craig >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> > Aaron Knister Associate Systems Analyst Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (301) 595-7000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss End of Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17 ********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 11404 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20080212/610bb025/attachment.bin ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss End of Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 19 **********************************************
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
