On 2010-11-08, at 11:39, Bob Ball wrote: > Don't know if I sent to the whole list. One of those days. > > remade the raid device, remade the lustre fs on it, but the disks won't > mount. Error is below. How do I overcome this? > > mounting device /dev/sdc at /mnt/ost12, flags=0 options=device=/dev/sdc > mount.lustre: mount /dev/sdc at /mnt/ost12 failed: Address already in use > retries left: 0 > mount.lustre: mount /dev/sdc at /mnt/ost12 failed: Address already in use > The target service's index is already in use. (/dev/sdc)
Looks like you didn't copy the old "CONFIGS/mountdata" file over the new one. You can also use "--writeconf" (described in the manual and several times on the list) to have the MGS re-generate the configuration, which should fix this as well. > On 11/8/2010 5:01 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> On 2010-11-07, at 12:32, Bob Ball <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Tomorrow, we will redo all 8 OST on the first file server we are redoing. >>> I am very nervous about this, as a lot is riding on us doing this >>> correctly. For example, on a client now, if I umount one of the ost, >>> without first taking some (unknown to me) action on the MDT, then the >>> client will hang on the "df" command. >>> >>> So, while we are doing the reformat, is there any way to avoid this "hang" >>> situation? >> >> If you issue "lctl --device %{OSC UUID} deactivate" on the MDS and clients >> then any operations on those OSTs will immediately fail with an IO error. If >> you are migrating I objects from those OSTs, I would have imagined you >> already did this on the MDS or new objects would have continued to be >> allocated there >> >>> Is the --index=XX argument to mkfs.lustre hex, or decimal? Seems from your >>> comment below that this must be hex? >> >> Decimal, though it may also accept hex (I can't check right now). >> >>> Finally, does supplying the --index even matter if we restore the files >>> below that you mention? That seems to be what you are saying. >> >> Well, you still need to set the filesystem label. This could be done with >> tune2fs, but you may as well specify the right index from the beginning. >> >>> On 11/6/2010 11:09 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>>> On 2010-11-06, at 8:24, Bob Ball<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I am emptying a set of OST so that I can reformat the underlying RAID-6 >>>>> more efficiently. Two questions: >>>>> 1. Is there a quick way to tell if the OST is really empty? lfs_find >>>>> takes many hours to run. >>>> If you mount the OST as type ldiskfs and look in the O/0/d* directories >>>> (capital-O, zero) there should be a few hundred zero-length objects owned >>>> by root. >>>> >>>>> 2. When I reformat, I want it to retain the same ID so as to not make >>>>> "holes" in the list. From the following information, am I correct to >>>>> assume that the id is 24? If not, how do I determine the correct ID to >>>>> use when we re-create the file system? >>>> If you still have the existing OST, the easiest way to do this is to save >>>> the files last_rcvd, O/0/LAST_ID, and CONFIGS/*, and copy them into the >>>> reformatted OST. >>>> >>>>> /dev/sdj 3.5T 3.1T 222G 94% /mnt/ost51 >>>>> 10 UP obdfilter umt3-OST0018 umt3-OST0018_UUID 547 >>>>> umt3-OST0018_UUID 3.4T 3.0T 221.1G 88% >>>>> /lustre/umt3[OST:24] >>>>> 20 IN osc umt3-OST0018-osc umt3-mdtlov_UUID 5 >>>> The OST index is indeed 24 (18 hex). As for /dev/sdj, it is hard to know >>>> from the above info. If you run "e2label /dev/sdj" the filesystem label >>>> should match the OST name umt3-OST0018. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Andreas >>>> Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Technical Lead Oracle Corporation Canada Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
