[Lustre-discuss] Lustre client error
Kevin Van Maren
kevin.van.maren at oracle.com
Thu Feb 17 14:14:36 PST 2011
To figure out which OST is which, use "e2label /dev/sdX" (or "e2label
/dev/mapper/mpath7") which will print the OST index in hex.
If clients run out of space, but there is space left, see Bug 22755
(mostly fixed in Lustre 1.8.4).
Lustre assigns the OST index at file creation time. Lustre will avoid
full OSTs, but once a file is created any growth must be accommodated by
the initial OST assignment(s). Deactivating the OST on the MDS will
prevent new allocations, but they shouldn't be happening anyway.
You can copy/rename some large files to put them on another OST which
will free up space on the full OST (move will not allocate new space,
just change the directory name).
Kevin
Jagga Soorma wrote:
> This OST is 100% now with only 12GB remaining and something is
> actively writing to this volume. What would be the appropriate thing
> to do in this scenario? If I set this to read only on the mds then
> some of my clients start hanging up.
>
> Should I be running "lfs find -O OST_UID /lustre" and then move the
> files out of this filesystem and re-add them back? But then there is
> no gurantee that they will not be written to this specific OST.
>
> Any help would be greately appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> -J
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jagga Soorma <jagga13 at gmail.com
> <mailto:jagga13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I might be looking at the wrong OST. What is the best way to map
> the actual /dev/mapper/mpath[X] to what OST ID is used for that
> volume?
>
> Thanks,
> -J
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jagga Soorma <jagga13 at gmail.com
> <mailto:jagga13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Also, it looks like the client is reporting a different %used
> compared to the oss server itself:
>
> client:
> reshpc101:~ # lfs df -h | grep -i 0007
> reshpcfs-OST0007_UUID 2.0T 1.7T 202.7G 84%
> /reshpcfs[OST:7]
>
> oss:
> /dev/mapper/mpath7 2.0T 1.9T 40G 98%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath7
>
> Here is how the data seems to be distributed on one of the OSS's:
> --
> /dev/mapper/mpath5 2.0T 1.2T 688G 65%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath5
> /dev/mapper/mpath6 2.0T 1.7T 224G 89%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath6
> /dev/mapper/mpath7 2.0T 1.9T 41G 98%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath7
> /dev/mapper/mpath8 2.0T 1.3T 671G 65%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath8
> /dev/mapper/mpath9 2.0T 1.3T 634G 67%
> /gnet/lustre/oss02/mpath9
> --
>
> -J
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jagga Soorma
> <jagga13 at gmail.com <mailto:jagga13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I did deactivate this OST on the MDS server. So how would
> I deal with a OST filling up? The OST's don't seem to be
> filling up evenly either. How does lustre handle a OST
> that is at 100%? Would it not use this specific OST for
> writes if there are other OST available with capacity?
>
> Thanks,
> -J
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Dilger
> <adilger at whamcloud.com <mailto:adilger at whamcloud.com>> wrote:
>
> On 2011-02-15, at 12:20, Cliff White wrote:
> > Client situation depends on where you deactivated
> the OST - if you deactivate on the MDS only, clients
> should be able to read.
> >
> > What is best to do when an OST fills up really
> depends on what else you are doing at the time, and
> how much control you have over what the clients are
> doing and other things. If you can solve the space
> issue with a quick rm -rf, best to leave it online,
> likewise if all your clients are trying to bang on it
> and failing, best to turn things off. YMMV
>
> In theory, with 1.8 the full OST should be skipped for
> new object allocations, but this is not robust in the
> face of e.g. a single very large file being written to
> the OST that takes it from "average" usage to being full.
>
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Jagga Soorma
> <jagga13 at gmail.com <mailto:jagga13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > One of my clients got a hung lustre mount this
> morning and I saw the following errors in my logs:
> >
> > --
> > ..snip..
> > Feb 15 09:38:07 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_write operation failed with -28
> > Feb 15 09:38:07 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 4755836 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 09:48:07 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_write operation failed with -28
> > Feb 15 09:48:07 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 4649141 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 10:16:54 reshpc116 kernel: Lustre:
> 6254:0:(client.c:1476:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@
> Request x1360125198261945 sent from
> reshpcfs-OST0005-osc-ffff8830175c8400 to NID
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3 1344s ago has timed out (1344s prior
> to deadline).
> > Feb 15 10:16:54 reshpc116 kernel: Lustre:
> reshpcfs-OST0005-osc-ffff8830175c8400: Connection to
> service reshpcfs-OST0005 via nid 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3 was
> lost; in progress operations using this service will
> wait for recovery to complete.
> > Feb 15 10:16:54 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_connect operation failed
> with -16
> > Feb 15 10:16:54 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 2888779 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 10:16:55 reshpc116 kernel: Lustre:
> 6254:0:(client.c:1476:ptlrpc_expire_one_request()) @@@
> Request x1360125198261947 sent from
> reshpcfs-OST0005-osc-ffff8830175c8400 to NID
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3 1344s ago has timed out (1344s prior
> to deadline).
> > Feb 15 10:18:11 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_connect operation failed
> with -16
> > Feb 15 10:18:11 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 10 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 10:20:45 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_connect operation failed
> with -16
> > Feb 15 10:20:45 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 21 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 10:25:46 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError: 11-0:
> an error occurred while communicating with
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3. The ost_connect operation failed
> with -16
> > Feb 15 10:25:46 reshpc116 kernel: LustreError:
> Skipped 42 previous similar messages
> > Feb 15 10:31:43 reshpc116 kernel: Lustre:
> reshpcfs-OST0005-osc-ffff8830175c8400: Connection
> restored to service reshpcfs-OST0005 using nid
> 10.0.250.47 at o2ib3.
> > --
> >
> > Due to disk space issues on my lustre filesystem one
> of the OST's were full and I deactivated that OST this
> morning. I thought that operation just puts it in a
> read only state and that clients can still access the
> data from that OST. After activating this OST again
> the client connected again and was okay after this.
> How else would you deal with a OST that is close to
> 100% full? Is it okay to leave the OST active and the
> clients will know not to write data to that OST?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -J
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lustre-discuss mailing list
> > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> <mailto:Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
> > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lustre-discuss mailing list
> > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> <mailto:Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
> > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Principal Engineer
> Whamcloud, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
More information about the lustre-discuss
mailing list