Yeah I stopped this and am strongly considering upgrading the servers to CentOS 6.7 + lustre 2.8, I hope to first test it on a test environment....
Did anyone run this type of upgrade? Should it work? Or should I take it in steps (2.6, 2.7 and only then 2.8)? Thanks, Eli On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Dilger, Andreas <[email protected]> wrote: > Running "e2fsck --mdsdb" will take _much_ longer than a regular e2fsck, > because the mdsdb database is sparsely written. I would recommend not > running the old e2fsprogs-based lfsck, since Lustre 2.5 has enough > functionality to repair the Lustre-specific parts of the local filesystem > (after a regular e2fsck), and Lustre 2.7 will also fix the MDT-OST > consistency (orphan objects and dangling MDT layout references). > > > > Cheers, Andreas > > -- > > Andreas Dilger > > Lustre Principal Architect > > Intel High Performance Data Division > > > > On 2016/08/11, 20:19, "lustre-discuss on behalf of E.S. Rosenberg" < > [email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry about spamming the list but I realize it may be better that subjects > be split into threads.... > > I started e2fsck --mdsdb 6 hours ago on an MDT that is 1T in size, am I > being unreasonable if I think it should have been done by now? > > What type of runtimes have you seen? > > I shudder to think how long this is going to take on the OSTs if this is > normal runtime.... > > > > Thanks, > > Eli > >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
