Hide Forgot
Description of problem: layout_vxattrs.sh fails during pool namespace 3.10.0-514.el7.x86_64 2016-10-21T20:20:35.235 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:++ getfattr -n ceph.dir.layout.pool ./../.. --only-values 2016-10-21T20:20:35.235 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ datapool=cephfs_data 2016-10-21T20:20:35.236 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ break 2016-10-21T20:20:35.236 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ rm -f file file2 2016-10-21T20:20:35.237 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ touch file file2 2016-10-21T20:20:35.238 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.238 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ grep -q object_size= 2016-10-21T20:20:35.239 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.240 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.240 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ grep -q stripe_count= 2016-10-21T20:20:35.241 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.242 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ grep -q stripe_unit= 2016-10-21T20:20:35.242 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ grep -q pool= 2016-10-21T20:20:35.243 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.244 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout.pool file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.244 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:+ getfattr -n ceph.file.layout.pool_namespace file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.245 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stderr:file: ceph.file.layout.pool_namespace: No such attribute 2016-10-21T20:20:35.246 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:. 2016-10-21T20:20:35.247 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:./.. 2016-10-21T20:20:35.247 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:./../.. 2016-10-21T20:20:35.248 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:# file: file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.248 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:ceph.file.layout="stripe_unit=4194304 stripe_count=1 object_size=4194304 pool=cephfs_data" 2016-10-21T20:20:35.249 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout: 2016-10-21T20:20:35.250 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:# file: file 2016-10-21T20:20:35.250 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout:ceph.file.layout.pool="cephfs_data" 2016-10-21T20:20:35.251 INFO:tasks.workunit.client.0.pluto008.stdout: 2016-10-21T20:20:35.252 INFO:tasks.workunit:Stopping ['fs/misc'] on client.0... 2016-10-21T20:20:35.252 INFO:teuthology.orchestra.run.pluto008:Running: 'rm -rf -- /home/ubuntu/cephtest/workunits.list.client.0 /home/ubuntu/cephtest/workunit.client.0 /home/ubuntu/cephtest/clone.client.0' 2016-10-21T20:20:35.306 ERROR:teuthology.parallel:Exception in parallel execution Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/parallel.py", line 83, in __exit__ for result in self: File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/parallel.py", line 101, in next resurrect_traceback(result) File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/parallel.py", line 19, in capture_traceback return func(*args, **kwargs) File "/home/teuthworker/src/ceph-qa-suite_rh22/tasks/workunit.py", line 404, in _run_tests label="workunit test {workunit}".format(workunit=workunit) File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/orchestra/remote.py", line 194, in run r = self._runner(client=self.ssh, name=self.shortname, **kwargs) File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/orchestra/run.py", line 402, in run r.wait() File "/home/teuthworker/src/teuthology_rh22/teuthology/orchestra/run.py", line 166, in wait label=self.label) If the name pool namespace is not supported with latest 7.3 kernel, probably we want to document?
Yes, if the downstream documentation mentions this field then it should warn about this.
Bara: I've added notes in the doc field, could you pick this up?
I'd say just the limitations section should be fine.
Looks good, thanks!