[gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
Simon Thompson
S.J.Thompson at bham.ac.uk
Wed Oct 23 11:14:23 BST 2019
From our experience, you can generally upgrade the GPFS code node by node, but the SMB code has to be identical on all nodes. So that's basically a do it one day and cross your fingers it doesn't break moment... but it is disruptive as well as you have to stop SMB to do the upgrade. I think there is a long standing RFE open on this about non disruptive SMB upgrades...
Simon
On 23/10/2019, 10:49, "gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of Ivano.Talamo at psi.ch" <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of Ivano.Talamo at psi.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
We are actually in the process of upgrading our CES cluster to 5.0.3-3 but we have doubts about how to proceed.
Considering that the CES cluster is in production and heavily used, our plan is to add a new node with 5.0.3-3 to the cluster that is currently 5.0.2.1.
And we would like to proceed in a cautious way, so that the new node would not take any IP and just one day per week (when we will declare to be “at risk”) we would move some IPs to it. After some weeks of tests if we would see no problem we would upgrade the rest of the cluster.
But reading these doc [1] it seems that we cannot have multiple GPFS/SMB version in the same cluster. So in that case we could not have a testing/acceptance phase but could only make the full blind jump. Can someone confirm or negate this?
Thanks,
Ivano
[1] https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.2/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r02.doc/bl1ins_updatingsmb.htm
On 04.10.19, 12:55, "gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of Malahal R Naineni" <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of mnaineni at in.ibm.com> wrote:
You can use 5.0.3.3 . There is no fix for the sssd issue yet though. I will work with Ganesha upstream community pretty soon.
Regards, Malahal.
----- Original message -----
From: Leonardo Sala <leonardo.sala at psi.ch>
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>, "Malahal R Naineni" <mnaineni at in.ibm.com>, <u.sibiller at science-computing.de>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
Date: Fri, Oct 4, 2019 12:02 PM
Dear Malahal,
thanks for the answer. Concerning SSSD, we are also using it, should we use 5.0.2-PTF3? We would like to avoid using 5.0.2.2, as it has issues with recent RHEL 7.6 kernels [*] and we are impacted: do you suggest to use 5.0.3.3?
cheers
leo
[*] https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-spectrum-scale-gpfs-releases-42313-or-later-and-5022-or-later-have-issues-where-kernel-crashes-rhel76-0
Paul Scherrer Institut
Dr. Leonardo Sala
Group Leader High Performance Computing
Deputy Section Head Science IT
Science IT
WHGA/106
5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland
Phone: +41 56 310 3369
leonardo.sala at psi.ch
www.psi.ch <http://www.psi.ch>
On 03.10.19 19:15, Malahal R Naineni wrote:
>> @Malahal: Looks like you have written the netgroup caching code, feel free to ask for further details if required.
Hi Ulrich, Ganesha uses innetgr() call for netgroup information and sssd has too many issues in its implementation. Redhat said that they are going to fix sssd synchronization issues in RHEL8. It is in my plate to serialize innergr() call in Ganesha to
match kernel NFS server usage! I expect the sssd issue to give EACCESS/EPERM kind of issue but not EINVAL though.
If you are using sssd, you must be getting into a sssd issue. Ganesha has a host-ip cache fix in 5.0.2 PTF3. Please make sure you use ganesha version V2.5.3-ibm030.01 if you are using netgroups (shipped with 5.0.2 PTF3 but can be used with Scale 5.0.1
or later)
Regards, Malahal.
----- Original message -----
From: Ulrich Sibiller
<u.sibiller at science-computing.de> <mailto:u.sibiller at science-computing.de>
Sent by:
gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>
To: gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2018 7:32 PM
On 23.11.2018 14:41, Andreas Mattsson wrote:
> Yes, this is repeating.
>
> We’ve ascertained that it has nothing to do at all with file operations on the GPFS side.
>
> Randomly throughout the filesystem mounted via NFS, ls or file access will give
>
> ”
>
> > ls: reading directory /gpfs/filessystem/test/testdir: Invalid argument
>
> “
>
> Trying again later might work on that folder, but might fail somewhere else.
>
> We have tried exporting the same filesystem via a standard kernel NFS instead of the CES
> Ganesha-NFS, and then the problem doesn’t exist.
>
> So it is definitely related to the Ganesha NFS server, or its interaction with the file system.
> > Will see if I can get a tcpdump of the issue.
We see this, too. We cannot trigger it. Fortunately I have managed to capture some logs with
debugging enabled. I have now dug into the ganesha 2.5.3 code and I think the netgroup caching is
the culprit.
Here some FULL_DEBUG output:
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :Check for address 1.2.3.4 for export id 1 path /gpfsexport
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
:EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcf7fe0 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup1 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
:DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
:EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcfe320 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup2 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
:DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] client_match
:EXPORT :M_DBG :Match V4: 0xcfe380 NETGROUP_CLIENT: netgroup3 (options=421021e2root_squash , RWrw,
3--, ---, TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_ip_name_get
:DISP :F_DBG :Cache get hit for 1.2.3.4->client1.domain
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :EXPORT (options=03303002 , , ,
, , -- Deleg, , )
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :EXPORT_DEFAULTS (options=42102002root_squash , ----, 3--, ---,
TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , , anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :default options (options=03303002root_squash , ----, 34-, UDP,
TCP, ----, No Manage_Gids, -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, none, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250]
export_check_access :EXPORT :M_DBG :Final options (options=42102002root_squash , ----, 3--, ---,
TCP, ----, Manage_Gids , -- Deleg, anon_uid= -2, anon_gid= -2, sys)
2018-12-13 11:53:41 : epoch 0009008d : server1 : gpfs.ganesha.nfsd-258762[work-250] nfs_rpc_execute
:DISP :INFO :DISP: INFO: Client ::ffff:1.2.3.4 is not allowed to access Export_Id 1 /gpfsexport,
vers=3, proc=18
The client "client1" is definitely a member of the "netgroup1". But the NETGROUP_CLIENT lookups for
"netgroup2" and "netgroup3" can only happen if the netgroup caching code reports that "client1" is
NOT a member of "netgroup1".
I have also opened a support case at IBM for this.
@Malahal: Looks like you have written the netgroup caching code, feel free to ask for further
details if required.
Kind regards,
Ulrich Sibiller
--
Dipl.-Inf. Ulrich Sibiller science + computing ag
System Administration Hagellocher Weg 73
72070 Tuebingen, Germany
https://atos.net/de/deutschland/sc <https://atos.net/de/deutschland/sc>
--
Science + Computing AG
Vorstandsvorsitzender/Chairman of the board of management:
Dr. Martin Matzke
Vorstand/Board of Management:
Matthias Schempp, Sabine Hohenstein
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/
Chairman of the Supervisory Board:
Philippe Miltin
Aufsichtsrat/Supervisory Board:
Martin Wibbe, Ursula Morgenstern
Sitz/Registered Office: Tuebingen
Registergericht/Registration Court: Stuttgart
Registernummer/Commercial Register No.: HRB 382196
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
More information about the gpfsug-discuss
mailing list