[lustre-discuss] reasonable runtime for e2fsck

E.S. Rosenberg esr+lustre at mail.hebrew.edu
Fri Aug 12 01:32:33 PDT 2016


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 9:49 AM, Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dilger at intel.com>
wrote:

> 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 regular e2fsck), and Lustre 2.7 will also fix the MDT-OST
> consistency (orphan objects and dangling MDT layout references).
>
>
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
> --
>
> Andreas Dilger
>
> Lustre Principal Architect
>
> Intel High Performance Data Division
>
>
>
> On 2016/08/11, 20:19, "lustre-discuss on behalf of E.S. Rosenberg" <
> lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org on behalf of
> esr+lustre at mail.hebrew.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 long this is going to take on the OSTs if this is
> normal runtime....
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eli
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20160812/8a7539b7/attachment.htm>


More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list