On 2009-12-10, at 16:37, Papp Tamas wrote: > Well, it was not working, and by the way, my guess is that it should > not work. I didn't write, but /usr/src/kernels/ > 2.6.18-128.7.1.el5_lustre.1.8.1.1-x86_64/ belongs to the official > kernel-lustre-devel-2.6.18-128.7.1.el5_lustre.1.8.1.1 package. > > Anyway, a build an own kernel and lustre b1_8 with the patches from > the bug 19557: > > Linux meta1 2.6.18-prep #1 SMP Sun Dec 6 14:40:15 CET 2009 x86_64 > x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > I installed it on the MDS and the tw OSSs. Unofortunately no luck: > > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: Call Trace: > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: [<ffffffff88491b91>] :lnet:LNetMDBind > +0x301/0x450 > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: [<ffffffff8003dacd>] lock_timer_base > +0x1b/0x3c > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: [<ffffffff8001caa7>] __mod_timer > +0xb0/0xbe > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: [<ffffffff8006387b>] schedule_timeout > +0x8a/0xad > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: [<ffffffff80096ff3>] process_timeout > +0x0/0x5 > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: > [<ffffffff888234ca>] :ost:ost_brw_write+0x137a/0x23a0 > Dec 9 18:41:36 node1 kernel: > [<ffffffff8859f998>] :ptlrpc:ptlrpc_send_reply+0x5c8/0x5e0
This is a different issue. The previous stack was busy in lustre_hash_for_each_empty(). > Should I install this patched lustre on the clients too? Or is the > problem something else? This is strictly a server-side patch. This looks like a similar issue, and may be fixed by one of the other patches on bug 19557. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
