We have a lustre 1.8 filesystem that was upgraded to lustre 2.x and
"dirdata" feature was enabled. We encountered LU-5626/LU-2638 issue with
".." directory entries. Are there established recovery steps for this
issue ?
If I run fsck, the directory entries will be moved into lost+found.
I assum
Hello,
I'm working on setting up a pair of oss systems that should be able to take
over for eachother should one of them fail (they both have access to the same
storage arrays). I'm using lustre 2.5.3 with zfs as the back end on a pair of
CentOS 6.5 systems.
Respectfully,
Kurt J. Strosahl
Chris,
I had the joy of taking this one apart personally. We mostly let lfsck do the
repair and moved on, accepting that some of the dentries were trashed. I
think, for important things, our field staff did some manual recovery with the
e2fsprogs tools, but it was not a common enough problem
Excuse me, I said 'lfsck' below, but I meant 'fsck'.
From: lustre-discuss [lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] on behalf of
Patrick Farrell [p...@cray.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Chris Hunter; lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
Subje
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Chris Hunter wrote:
>
> We have a lustre 1.8 filesystem that was upgraded to lustre 2.x and "dirdata"
> feature was enabled. We encountered LU-5626/LU-2638 issue with ".." directory
> entries. Are there established recovery steps for this issue ?
>
> If I run f
Rick,
That's something of a time bomb - If one of those directories fsck
wishes it could correct is small and grows in number of files, you'll
get the MDT going read only (and a few odd LBUGs if you try to put it back).
- Patrick
On 10/27/2015 12:18 PM, Mohr Jr, Richard Frank (Rick Mohr) wro
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for sharing your experience, looks like you did the bulk of
troubleshooting in the Jira ticket.
I assume I should have a clean filesystem (ie. run fsck first) before
disabling the dirdata feature ?
After I disable dirdata, I will need to run fsck with the "-D" option ?
FYI
Chris,
That's probably best, to be safe. By the way, this is one where (if I
remember right) sometimes you run fsck, let it correct things, then you
must run it again - As it will find new things to object about in the
modified filesystem. So if you weren't already, running fsck repeatedly
