Hi, Andreas， Thanks for your reply. Maybe this is a bug? We never hit this before update client to 2.12.5
Andreas Dilger <adil...@whamcloud.com> 于2020年8月29日周六 下午6:37写道： > On Aug 25, 2020, at 17:42, 肖正刚 <guru.nov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > no, on oss we found only the client who reported " dirty page discard " > being evicted. > we hit this again last night, and on oss we can see logs like: > " > [Tue Aug 25 23:40:12 2020] LustreError: > 14278:0:(ldlm_lockd.c:256:expired_lock_main()) ### lock callback timer > expired after 100s: evicting client at 10.10.3.223@o2ib ns: > filter-public1-OST0000_UUID lock: ffff9f1f91cba880/0x3fcc67dad1c65842 lrc: > 3/0,0 mode: PR/PR res: [0xde2db83:0x0:0x0].0x0 rrc: 3 type: EXT > [0->18446744073709551615] (req 0->270335) flags: 0x60000400020020 nid: > 10.10.3.223@o2ib remote: 0xd713b7b417045252 expref: 7081 pid: 25923 > timeout: 21386699 lvb_type: 0 > > > It isn't clear what the question is here. The "dirty page discard" > message means that unwritten data from the client was discarded because the > client was evicted and the lock covering this data was revoked by the > server because the client was not responsive. > > Anymore , we exec lfsck on all servers, result is > > > There is no need for LFSCK in this case. The file data was not written, > but a client eviction does not result in the filesystem becoming > inconsistent. > > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Principal Lustre Architect > Whamcloud > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
