[lustre-discuss] OST is not mounting

2023-11-05 Thread Backer via lustre-discuss
Hi, I am new to this email list. Looking to get some help on why an OST is not getting mounted. The cluster was running healthy and the OST experienced an issue and Linux re-mounted the OST read only. After fixing the issue and rebooting the node multiple times, it wouldn't mount. When the

Re: [lustre-discuss] Possible change to "lfs find -size" default units?

2023-11-05 Thread Aaron Knister via lustre-discuss
The current behavior I’m guessing has existed since the lfs find command was introduced so there’s probably a lot of user code and external software built around the current behavior. That could all break in ugly ways if the default unit is changed to a value that’s 512 times larger than :)

Re: [lustre-discuss] Possible change to "lfs find -size" default units?

2023-11-05 Thread Peter Grandi via lustre-discuss
>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 06:13:52 +, Andreas Dilger via >>> lustre-discuss said: > I've recently realized that "lfs find -size N" defaults to > looking for files of N *bytes* by default, unlike regular > find(1) that is assuming 512-byte blocks by default if no > units are given. [...] I

[lustre-discuss] Possible change to "lfs find -size" default units?

2023-11-05 Thread Andreas Dilger via lustre-discuss
I've recently realized that "lfs find -size N" defaults to looking for files of N *bytes* by default, unlike regular find(1) that is assuming 512-byte blocks by default if no units are given. I'm wondering if it would be disruptive to users if the default unit for -size was changed to 512-byte