On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 03:16:31PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: >On Apr 30, 2008 11:40 -0400, Aaron Knister wrote: >> Some more information that might be helpful. There is a particular code >> that one of our users runs. Personally after the trouble this code has >> caused us we'd like to hand him a calculator and disable his accounts but >> sadly that's not an option. Since the time of the hang, there is what seems >> to be one process associated with lustre that is running as the userid of >> the problem user- "ll_sa_15530". A trace of this process in its current >> state shows this - >> >> Is this a problem with the lustre readahead code? If so would this fix it? >> "echo 0 > /proc/fs/lustre/llite/*/statahead_count " > >Yes, this appears to be a statahead problem. There were fixes added to >1.6.5 that should resolve the problems seen with statahead. In the meantime >I'd recommend disabling it as you suggest above.
we're seeing the same problem. I think the workaround should be: echo 0 > /proc/fs/lustre/llite/*/statahead_max ?? /proc/fs/lustre/llite/*/statahead_count is -r--r--r-- cheers, robin ps. sorry I've been too busy this week to look at the llite_lloop stuff. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
