Bug 1305152 - RFE: Improve mark_lost_revert and mark_lost_delete [NEEDINFO]
Summary: RFE: Improve mark_lost_revert and mark_lost_delete
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Ceph Storage
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RADOS
Version: 1.3.2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: 2.0
Assignee: Samuel Just
QA Contact: Vasu Kulkarni
Bara Ancincova
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1322504
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-02-05 20:09 UTC by Samuel Just
Modified: 2017-07-30 15:18 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

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.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-23 19:30:16 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
sjust: needinfo? (hnallurv)


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Ceph Project Bug Tracker 14411 None None None 2016-02-05 20:09:10 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2016:1755 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Red Hat Ceph Storage 2.0 bug fix and enhancement update 2016-08-23 23:23:52 UTC

Description Samuel Just 2016-02-05 20:09:11 UTC
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 13:14:45 UTC
Sam I think you said this issue is resolved upstream in v10.0.4? is that correct?

Comment 5 Samuel Just 2016-03-15 15:01:45 UTC
Yes

Comment 6 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-03-15 15:37:05 UTC
Thanks Sam!

Comment 7 Samuel Just 2016-03-15 17:31:40 UTC
See tasks/[ec_]lost_unfound.py and tasks/rep_lost_unfound_delete.py.

Comment 12 Vasu Kulkarni 2016-07-19 23:51:14 UTC
verified in 10.2.2-23.el7cp

Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2016-08-23 19:30:16 UTC
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.