I'm positive the client I sent you the log is 94. We do have one client still on 87.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015, 6:42 AM John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hmm, so apparently a similar bug was fixed in 0.87: Scott, can you confirm > that your *clients* were 0.94 (not just the servers)? > > Thanks, > John > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:56 AM, John Spray <jsp...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Ah, this is a nice clear log! >> >> I've described the bug here: >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13271 >> >> In the short term, you may be able to mitigate this by increasing >> client_cache_size (on the client) if your RAM allows it. >> >> John >> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Scottix <scot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I know this is an old one but I got a log in ceph-fuse for it. >>> I got this on OpenSuse 12.1 >>> 3.1.10-1.29-desktop >>> >>> Using ceph-fuse >>> ceph version 0.94.3 (95cefea9fd9ab740263bf8bb4796fd864d9afe2b) >>> >>> I am running an rsync in the background and then doing a simple ls -la >>> so the log is large. >>> >>> I am guessing this is the problem. The file is there and if I list the >>> directory again it shows up properly. >>> >>> 2015-09-28 16:34:21.548631 7f372effd700 3 client.28239198 ll_lookup >>> 0x7f370d1b1c50 data.2015-08-23_00-00-00.csv.bz2 >>> 2015-09-28 16:34:21.548635 7f372effd700 10 client.28239198 _lookup >>> concluded ENOENT locally for 100009d72a1.head(ref=4 ll_ref=5 cap_refs={} >>> open={} mode=42775 size=0/0 mtime=2015-09-28 05:57:57.259306 >>> caps=pAsLsXsFs(0=pAsLsXsFs) COMPLETE parents=0x7f3732ff97c0 0x7f370d1b1c50) >>> dn 'data.2015-08-23_00-00-00.csv.bz2' >>> >>> >>> [image: Selection_034.png] >>> >>> It seems to show up more if multiple things are access the ceph mount, >>> just my observations. >>> >>> Best, >>> Scott >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:05 PM Scottix <scot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Ya we are not at 0.87.1 yet, possibly tomorrow. I'll let you know if it >>>> still reports the same. >>>> >>>> Thanks John, >>>> --Scottie >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:57 PM John Spray <john.sp...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/03/2015 22:35, Scottix wrote: >>>>> > I was testing a little bit more and decided to run the >>>>> cephfs-journal-tool >>>>> > >>>>> > I ran across some errors >>>>> > >>>>> > $ cephfs-journal-tool journal inspect >>>>> > 2015-03-03 14:18:54.453981 7f8e29f86780 -1 Bad entry start ptr >>>>> > (0x2aeb0000f6) at 0x2aeb32279b >>>>> > 2015-03-03 14:18:54.539060 7f8e29f86780 -1 Bad entry start ptr >>>>> > (0x2aeb000733) at 0x2aeb322dd8 >>>>> > 2015-03-03 14:18:54.584539 7f8e29f86780 -1 Bad entry start ptr >>>>> > (0x2aeb000d70) at 0x2aeb323415 >>>>> > 2015-03-03 14:18:54.669991 7f8e29f86780 -1 Bad entry start ptr >>>>> > (0x2aeb0013ad) at 0x2aeb323a52 >>>>> > 2015-03-03 14:18:54.707724 7f8e29f86780 -1 Bad entry start ptr >>>>> > (0x2aeb0019ea) at 0x2aeb32408f >>>>> > Overall journal integrity: DAMAGED >>>>> >>>>> I expect this is http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9977, which is fixed >>>>> in >>>>> master. >>>>> >>>>> You are in *very* bleeding edge territory here, and I'd suggest using >>>>> the latest development release if you want to experiment with the >>>>> latest >>>>> CephFS tooling. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >> >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
