<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 4:25\u202fPM Andreas Dilger <<a href="mailto:adilger@dilger.ca">adilger@dilger.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
On Nov 4, 2025, at 4:54 PM, Jinshan Xiong <<a href="mailto:jinshanx@google.com" target="_blank">jinshanx@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:48\u202fPM Andreas Dilger <<a href="mailto:adilger@dilger.ca" target="_blank">adilger@dilger.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> If the overhead of a local Lustre mount on the OSS is problematic, that<br>
>> seems like something which could/should be fixed? The local mounts are<br>
>> already "non-recoverable" so that they do not get an entry in last_rcvd<br>
>> and their absence does not cause any recovery issues.<br>
>> <br>
>> The main issue we've seen with local mountpoints is that this can confuse<br>
>> HA and prevent Lustre module unloading if they are not taken into account<br>
>> during cleanup.<br>
> <br>
> You're right. That's actually why we didn't do it in the first place. If an OSS crashes, it will definitely lead to recovery timeout and client eviction.<br>
<br>
If an OSS crash with a local mountpoint is causing recovery timeouts,<br>
then that seems like a bug to be fixed. This was changed by Alex Z.<br>
in patch "LU-12722 target: disable recovery for local clients" back in<br>
commit v2_13_52-45-g8bd04b4e57.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the context. My knowledge of Lustre is many years old ;-)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers, Andreas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>