Hi again :)
Lustre 1.6.2 on amd64, 2.6.18 kernel.
We seem to be unable to set lustre quotas larger than 4TB. Somewhere
along the way the value seems to be truncated to 32bits. A quick gdb
session of an lfs binary with debug info shows the quota struct being
filled in correctly, so it seems to be something in the bowels of
lustre somewhere...
And it''s not just the display that''s bogus, verified by
hitting the
quota when trying write to the filesystem.
Is anybody else seeing this? As long as you have a quota-enabled
lustre filesystem it''s trivial to verify.
# lfs setquota -u nikke 2000000 4294967295 80000 100000 /hpfs
# lfs quota -u nikke /hpfs
Disk quotas for user nikke (uid 2676):
Filesystem blocks quota limit grace files quota limit grace
/hpfs 4 2000000 4294967295 1 80000 100000
# lfs setquota -u nikke 2000000 4294967296 80000 100000 /hpfs
# lfs quota -u nikke /hpfs
Disk quotas for user nikke (uid 2676):
Filesystem blocks quota limit grace files quota limit grace
/hpfs 4 2000000 0 1 80000 100000
# lfs setquota -u nikke 2000000 4294967297 80000 100000 /hpfs
# lfs quota -u nikke /hpfs
Disk quotas for user nikke (uid 2676):
Filesystem blocks quota limit grace files quota limit grace
/hpfs 4* 2000000 1 1 80000 100000
...
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | nikke at hpc2n.umu.se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I used to tell the truth all the time when I was evil." - Anya
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Kalpak Shah wrote:> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:50 +0200, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: >> Hi again :) >> >> Lustre 1.6.2 on amd64, 2.6.18 kernel. >> >> We seem to be unable to set lustre quotas larger than 4TB. Somewhere >> along the way the value seems to be truncated to 32bits. A quick gdb >> session of an lfs binary with debug info shows the quota struct being >> filled in correctly, so it seems to be something in the bowels of >> lustre somewhere... > > This is being worked upon in bug 13904."You are not authorized to access bug #13904." Would it be too much to ask that issues are filed in public bugs once identified in private bugs? As I''ve said before on the mailing list: The bugs themselves should never need to be private, however some customer test cases might need to be. In any case, I''m assuming this isn''t fixed in 1.6.3 then. Any ETA? Lustre 1.6.3.1? :) /Nikke -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | nikke at hpc2n.umu.se --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not a dictator. It''s just I have a grumpy face. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bernadat, Philippe
2007-Oct-23 11:43 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] Can''t set quota larger than 4TB
You can proceed, 15 and 16 are down Philippe> -----Original Message----- > From: lustre-discuss-bounces at clusterfs.com > [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at clusterfs.com] On Behalf Of > Niklas Edmundsson > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:30 PM > To: Kalpak Shah > Cc: lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com > Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Can''t set quota larger than 4TB > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:50 +0200, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > >> Hi again :) > >> > >> Lustre 1.6.2 on amd64, 2.6.18 kernel. > >> > >> We seem to be unable to set lustre quotas larger than 4TB. > Somewhere > >> along the way the value seems to be truncated to 32bits. A > quick gdb > >> session of an lfs binary with debug info shows the quota > struct being > >> filled in correctly, so it seems to be something in the bowels of > >> lustre somewhere... > > > > This is being worked upon in bug 13904. > > "You are not authorized to access bug #13904." > > Would it be too much to ask that issues are filed in public bugs once > identified in private bugs? > > As I''ve said before on the mailing list: The bugs themselves should > never need to be private, however some customer test cases might need > to be. > > In any case, I''m assuming this isn''t fixed in 1.6.3 then. Any ETA? > Lustre 1.6.3.1? :) > > /Nikke > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-> -=-=-=-=-=-=- > Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | > nikke at hpc2n.umu.se > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > I am not a dictator. It''s just I have a grumpy face. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=-=-> > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >
Bernadat, Philippe
2007-Oct-23 11:44 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] Can''t set quota larger than 4TB
Oops, wrong thread, ignore. Sorry for that. Philippe> -----Original Message----- > From: Bernadat, Philippe > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:43 PM > To: Niklas Edmundsson; Kalpak Shah > Cc: lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com > Subject: RE: [Lustre-discuss] Can''t set quota larger than 4TB > > You can proceed, 15 and 16 are down > > Philippe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lustre-discuss-bounces at clusterfs.com > > [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at clusterfs.com] On Behalf Of > > Niklas Edmundsson > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:30 PM > > To: Kalpak Shah > > Cc: lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com > > Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Can''t set quota larger than 4TB > > > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:50 +0200, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > > >> Hi again :) > > >> > > >> Lustre 1.6.2 on amd64, 2.6.18 kernel. > > >> > > >> We seem to be unable to set lustre quotas larger than 4TB. > > Somewhere > > >> along the way the value seems to be truncated to 32bits. A > > quick gdb > > >> session of an lfs binary with debug info shows the quota > > struct being > > >> filled in correctly, so it seems to be something in the bowels of > > >> lustre somewhere... > > > > > > This is being worked upon in bug 13904. > > > > "You are not authorized to access bug #13904." > > > > Would it be too much to ask that issues are filed in public > bugs once > > identified in private bugs? > > > > As I''ve said before on the mailing list: The bugs themselves should > > never need to be private, however some customer test cases > might need > > to be. > > > > In any case, I''m assuming this isn''t fixed in 1.6.3 then. Any ETA? > > Lustre 1.6.3.1? :) > > > > /Nikke > > -- > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-> > -=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | > > nikke at hpc2n.umu.se > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > > I am not a dictator. It''s just I have a grumpy face. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > =-=-=-=-=-=-> > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lustre-discuss mailing list > > Lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com > > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >