Bug 1305152 - RFE: Improve mark_lost_revert and mark_lost_delete [NEEDINFO]
RFE: Improve mark_lost_revert and mark_lost_delete
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Ceph Storage
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RADOS (Show other bugs)
1.3.2
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: rc
: 2.0
Assigned To: Samuel Just
Vasu Kulkarni
Bara Ancincova
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
Blocks: 1322504
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-02-05 15:09 EST by Samuel Just
Modified: 2017-07-30 11:18 EDT (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
.OSDs no longer crash when running `mark_lost_revert` or `mark_lost_delete` Previously, issuing the `mark_lost_revert` and `mark_lost_delete` commands during active client write operations could cause the OSD daemons to terminate unexpectedly. The underlying code has been modified, and OSDs no longer crash in the described scenario.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-23 15:30:16 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
sjust: needinfo? (hnallurv)


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Ceph Project Bug Tracker 14411 None None None 2016-02-05 15:09 EST

  None (edit)
Description Samuel Just 2016-02-05 15:09:11 EST
Description of problem:

In previous versions, these commands could non-deterministically crash osds if issued during active client writes.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Produce unfound objects (see the ceph-qa-suite tests which do this)
2. Run client writes (like rados bench)
3. Run mark_unfound_[delete|revert]

Actual results:

Sometimes, an osd crashes.

Expected results:

The objects are either reverted or removed.

Additional info:
Comment 4 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-03-15 09:14:45 EDT
Sam I think you said this issue is resolved upstream in v10.0.4? is that correct?
Comment 5 Samuel Just 2016-03-15 11:01:45 EDT
Yes
Comment 6 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-03-15 11:37:05 EDT
Thanks Sam!
Comment 7 Samuel Just 2016-03-15 13:31:40 EDT
See tasks/[ec_]lost_unfound.py and tasks/rep_lost_unfound_delete.py.
Comment 12 Vasu Kulkarni 2016-07-19 19:51:14 EDT
verified in 10.2.2-23.el7cp
Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2016-08-23 15:30:16 EDT
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016:1755

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.