Bug 1643326
Summary: | Storage domain mount error: Lustre file system (Posix compliant FS) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [oVirt] vdsm | Reporter: | okok102928 |
Component: | General | Assignee: | Dan Kenigsberg <danken> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Elad <ebenahar> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 4.20.31 | CC: | bugs, okok102928, tnisan |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-11-05 09:36:36 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | Storage | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
okok102928
2018-10-26 01:59:27 UTC
vfstype is lustre, not luster. I entered it wrong. Hi, Is it a 4K block storage or a 512b? (In reply to Tal Nisan from comment #2) > Hi, > Is it a 4K block storage or a 512b? 1. The sector size of the block device used in lustre FS is 4K (512e) sector, AF. However, the block device of 512 byte sector has the same result. 2. I contacted the Principal architect at lustre FS. He said lustre FS client should work with a block size that is a multiple of 4K during the direct IO operation. He said it was not easy to modify the file system client. 3. luster FS backfilesystem: ldiskfs is formatted with 4k block size. As you can see, I do not speak English well. Thank you for your understanding. Please tell me if you need more information. Is that the information you said? Waiting for an answer. Yes, that was my question. For now we do not support 4K block file system, this will change with bug 1592916 which will be released in 4.3, marking this bug as a duplicate and you can track the work on the original bug *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1592916 *** |