I wouldn't consider the lack of an lfsck run a reason to rush into an upgrade.
In most cases this will only result in some orphan OST objects consuming space
for a while, or MDT files returning ENOENT that can be deleted with "unlink".
As for upgrading, there isn't any reason to stop at the
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
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
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
