Hi Linus,
Please pull the following Ceph patch from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
Thanks!
sage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yan, Zheng (1):
ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
fs/ceph/addr.c | 4 ++++
fs/ceph/caps.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
fs/ceph/inode.c | 2 ++
fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
fs/ceph/mds_client.h | 1 +
fs/ceph/super.h | 1 +
include/linux/ceph/ceph_features.h | 1 +
7 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>
> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>
> Thanks!
> sage
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yan, Zheng (1):
> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
and fix.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> fs/ceph/addr.c | 4 ++++
> fs/ceph/caps.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> fs/ceph/inode.c | 2 ++
> fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> fs/ceph/mds_client.h | 1 +
> fs/ceph/super.h | 1 +
> include/linux/ceph/ceph_features.h | 1 +
> 7 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>
>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>
>> Thanks!
>> sage
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>
> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
> and fix.
It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
the other two bits. How did mount fail?
Thanks,
Ilya
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>
>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>
>> Thanks!
>> sage
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>
> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
> and fix.
Yes, it's mean to be some value. For the mount failure, please make
sure the MDS is compiled from the newest ceph code.
Regards
Yan, Zheng
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
>>
>> fs/ceph/addr.c | 4 ++++
>> fs/ceph/caps.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> fs/ceph/inode.c | 2 ++
>> fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> fs/ceph/mds_client.h | 1 +
>> fs/ceph/super.h | 1 +
>> include/linux/ceph/ceph_features.h | 1 +
>> 7 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>
>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> sage
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>
>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>
> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
I did wonder if that might be the case.
>
>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>> and fix.
>
> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
> the other two bits.
I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
for different core code.
> How did mount fail?
"can't read superblock".
dmesg contains
[ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
[ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
[ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
[ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
[ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
contains
#define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
// duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
#define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
Thanks,
NeilBrown
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Linus,
>>>>
>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>>
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>>
>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> sage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>>
>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>>
>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
>
> I did wonder if that might be the case.
>
>>
>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>>> and fix.
>>
>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
>> the other two bits.
>
> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
> for different core code.
>
>> How did mount fail?
>
> "can't read superblock".
> dmesg contains
>
> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
>
> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
>
> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
> contains
>
> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
>
> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
>
> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade
to ceph 10.1.0
Regards
Yan, Zheng
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Linus,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>>>
>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> sage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>>>
>>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
>>
>> I did wonder if that might be the case.
>>
>>>
>>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>>>> and fix.
>>>
>>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
>>> the other two bits.
>>
>> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
>> for different core code.
>>
>>> How did mount fail?
>>
>> "can't read superblock".
>> dmesg contains
>>
>> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
>> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
>> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
>> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
>> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
>>
>> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
>>
>> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
>> contains
>>
>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
>> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
>>
>> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
>> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
>>
>> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
>
> Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade
> to ceph 10.1.0
>
Ahhh.. I do wonder at the point of feature flags if they don't let you
run any client with any server...
Is there a compatability matrix published somewhere?
If I have to stay with 10.0.5 (I don't know yet), it is safe to use
Linux-4.4 code?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:40 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Linus,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> sage
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>>>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>>>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
>>>
>>> I did wonder if that might be the case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>>>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>>>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>>>>> and fix.
>>>>
>>>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
>>>> the other two bits.
>>>
>>> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
>>> for different core code.
>>>
>>>> How did mount fail?
>>>
>>> "can't read superblock".
>>> dmesg contains
>>>
>>> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
>>> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
>>> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
>>> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
>>> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
>>>
>>> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
>>>
>>> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
>>> contains
>>>
>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
>>> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
>>>
>>> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
>>> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
>>>
>>> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
>>
>> Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade
>> to ceph 10.1.0
>>
>
> Ahhh.. I do wonder at the point of feature flags if they don't let you
> run any client with any server...
> Is there a compatability matrix published somewhere?
> If I have to stay with 10.0.5 (I don't know yet), it is safe to use
> Linux-4.4 code?
10.0.* are all development cuts, we didn't even built packages for
some of them. 10.1.0 is the first release candidate. You can think of
10.0.5 as a random pre-rc1 kernel snapshot, aimed at brave testers, so
you do want to upgrade.
The reason it doesn't work is those three features are all defined to
the same value, but two of them got added earlier in the 10.0.* cycle.
CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 came in last, after 10.0.5.
Thanks,
Ilya
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:40 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Linus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>>>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>>>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> sage
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>>>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>>>>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>>>>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
>>>>
>>>> I did wonder if that might be the case.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>>>>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>>>>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>>>>>> and fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
>>>>> the other two bits.
>>>>
>>>> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
>>>> for different core code.
>>>>
>>>>> How did mount fail?
>>>>
>>>> "can't read superblock".
>>>> dmesg contains
>>>>
>>>> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
>>>> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
>>>> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
>>>> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
>>>> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
>>>>
>>>> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
>>>> contains
>>>>
>>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
>>>> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
>>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
>>>>
>>>> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
>>>> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
>>>>
>>>> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
>>>
>>> Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade
>>> to ceph 10.1.0
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh.. I do wonder at the point of feature flags if they don't let you
>> run any client with any server...
>> Is there a compatability matrix published somewhere?
>> If I have to stay with 10.0.5 (I don't know yet), it is safe to use
>> Linux-4.4 code?
>
> 10.0.* are all development cuts, we didn't even built packages for
> some of them. 10.1.0 is the first release candidate. You can think of
> 10.0.5 as a random pre-rc1 kernel snapshot, aimed at brave testers, so
> you do want to upgrade.
>
> The reason it doesn't work is those three features are all defined to
> the same value, but two of them got added earlier in the 10.0.* cycle.
> CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 came in last, after 10.0.5.
A little more specifically: these feature bits do let you run any
client with any "real release" of Ceph that we expect not-testers to
be using. They *usually* work on our dev releases as well, but we've
gotten stingier about it as we come close to running out of feature
bits and are trying to pack more of them into the same actual bits
(we're working on freeing them up as well, but got started a little
later than is comfortable), while coordinating code merges between a
few different places. You got unlucky here.
-Greg
On Thu, Mar 31 2016, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:40 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25 2016, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 06 2016, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Linus,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please pull the following Ceph patch from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git for-linus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a final commit we missed to align the protocol compatibility with
>>>>>>>> the feature bits. It decodes a few extra fields in two different messages
>>>>>>>> and reports EIO when they are used (not yet supported).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> sage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Yan, Zheng (1):
>>>>>>>> ceph: initial CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just wondering, but was CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 supposed to have
>>>>>>> exactly the same value as CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (and
>>>>>>> CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5)??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that was the point of getting it merged into -rc7.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did wonder if that might be the case.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because when I backported this patch (and many others) to some ancient
>>>>>>> enterprise kernel, it caused mounts to fail. If it really is meant to
>>>>>>> be the same value, then I must have some other backported issue to find
>>>>>>> and fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has to be backported in concert with changes that add support for
>>>>>> the other two bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have everything from fs/ceph and net/ceph as of 4.5, with adjustments
>>>>> for different core code.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How did mount fail?
>>>>>
>>>>> "can't read superblock".
>>>>> dmesg contains
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 50.822479] libceph: client144098 fsid 2b73bc29-3e78-490a-8fc6-21da1bf901ba
>>>>> [ 50.823746] libceph: mon0 192.168.1.122:6789 session established
>>>>> [ 51.635312] ceph: problem parsing mds trace -5
>>>>> [ 51.635317] ceph: mds parse_reply err -5
>>>>> [ 51.635318] ceph: mdsc_handle_reply got corrupt reply mds0(tid:1)
>>>>>
>>>>> then a hex dump of header:, front: footer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe my MDS is causing the problem? It is based on v10.0.5 which
>>>>> contains
>>>>>
>>>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUNABLES5 (1ULL<<58) /* chooseleaf stable mode */
>>>>> // duplicated since it was introduced at the same time as CEPH_FEATURE_CRUSH_TUN
>>>>> #define CEPH_FEATURE_NEW_OSDOPREPLY_ENCODING (1ULL<<58) /* New, v7 encoding */
>>>>>
>>>>> in ceph_features.h i.e. two features using bit 58, but not
>>>>> FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I expect Linux 4.5 to work with ceph 10.0.5 ??
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, cephfs in linux 4.5 does not work with 10.0.5. Please upgrade
>>>> to ceph 10.1.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahhh.. I do wonder at the point of feature flags if they don't let you
>>> run any client with any server...
>>> Is there a compatability matrix published somewhere?
>>> If I have to stay with 10.0.5 (I don't know yet), it is safe to use
>>> Linux-4.4 code?
>>
>> 10.0.* are all development cuts, we didn't even built packages for
>> some of them. 10.1.0 is the first release candidate. You can think of
>> 10.0.5 as a random pre-rc1 kernel snapshot, aimed at brave testers, so
>> you do want to upgrade.
>>
>> The reason it doesn't work is those three features are all defined to
>> the same value, but two of them got added earlier in the 10.0.* cycle.
>> CEPH_FEATURE_FS_FILE_LAYOUT_V2 came in last, after 10.0.5.
>
> A little more specifically: these feature bits do let you run any
> client with any "real release" of Ceph that we expect not-testers to
> be using. They *usually* work on our dev releases as well, but we've
> gotten stingier about it as we come close to running out of feature
> bits and are trying to pack more of them into the same actual bits
> (we're working on freeing them up as well, but got started a little
> later than is comfortable), while coordinating code merges between a
> few different places. You got unlucky here.
> -Greg
Thanks - you've been most helpful.
I'll see if we can use 10.1.0 for the MDS etc.
Thanks,
NeilBrown