Backport #14292
closedosd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")
Added by Yuri Weinstein over 8 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.
Updated by Tamilarasi muthamizhan over 8 years ago
latest log: @teuthology.ovh.sepia.ceph.com: /a/teuthology-2016-01-06_20:55:01-rados-hammer-distro-basic-openstack/61025
Updated by Samuel Just over 8 years ago
- Assignee set to David Zafman
- Priority changed from Normal to Urgent
Updated by David Zafman over 8 years ago
osd.4 asserted that its connection to osd.1 didn't have the feature bit 19 CEPH_FEATURE_CHUNKY_SCRUB set. Since all nodes are running 0.94.5-178-g9739d4d that feature bit should be set.
-114> 2016-01-06 21:57:40.561263 7f8a7fab6700 20 osd.4 pg_epoch: 19 pg[0.6( empty local-les=10 n=0 ec=1 les/c 10/10 9/9/9) [4,1] r=0 lpr=9 crt=0'0 mlcod 0'0 active+clean+scrubbing] OSD 1 does not support chunky scrubs, falling back to classicAs expected a previous message on osd.4 shows that osd.1 was reporting that feature through a different mechanism:
2016-01-06 21:50:35.216789 7f8a862c3700 20 osd.4 pg_epoch: 16 pg[1.3( empty local-les=0 n=0 ec=5 les/c 0/5 9/9/9) [4,1] r=0 lpr=16 pi=5-8/2 crt=0'0 mlcod 0'0 creating+peering] state<Started/Primary/Peering/GetInfo>: Adding osd: 1 features: 83ffffffffffff
Updated by David Zafman over 8 years ago
- Is duplicate of Bug #11661: "FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")" added
Updated by David Zafman over 8 years ago
- Status changed from New to 17
- Target version set to v0.94.6
Updated by David Zafman over 8 years ago
Pull request #7206 "Backports to fix 14292"
Updated by Loïc Dachary over 8 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Backport
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from 17 to In Progress
- Target version deleted (
v0.94.6)
Original description¶
Run: http://pulpito.ovh.sepia.ceph.com:8081/teuthology-2016-01-06_20:55:01-rados-hammer-distro-basic-openstack/
Job: ['61025']
Logs: http://teuthology.ovh.sepia.ceph.com/teuthology/teuthology-2016-01-06_20:55:01-rados-hammer-distro-basic-openstack/61025/teuthology.log
2016-01-06T21:57:40.672 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr:osd/PG.cc: In function 'void PG::scrub(ThreadPool::TPHandle&)' thread 7f8a7fab6700 time 2016-01-06 21:57:40.561289 2016-01-06T21:57:40.672 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr:osd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD") 2016-01-06T21:57:40.674 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: ceph version 0.94.5-178-g9739d4d (9739d4de49f8167866eda556b2f1581c068ec8a7) 2016-01-06T21:57:40.674 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 1: (ceph::__ceph_assert_fail(char const*, char const*, int, char const*)+0x8b) [0xbc5c7b] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.674 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 2: (PG::scrub(ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x5fb) [0x7fbbfb] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.675 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 3: (OSD::ScrubWQ::_process(PG*, ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x19) [0x6cdc79] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.675 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 4: (ThreadPool::worker(ThreadPool::WorkThread*)+0xa56) [0xbb6866] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.675 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 5: (ThreadPool::WorkThread::entry()+0x10) [0xbb7910] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.675 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 6: (()+0x8182) [0x7f8aa0b72182] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.676 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: 7: (clone()+0x6d) [0x7f8a9f0dd47d] 2016-01-06T21:57:40.676 INFO:tasks.ceph.osd.4.target082085.stderr: NOTE: a copy of the executable, or `objdump -rdS <executable>` is needed to interpret this
Updated by Loïc Dachary over 8 years ago
- Is duplicate of deleted (Bug #11661: "FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")")
Updated by Loïc Dachary over 8 years ago
- Copied from Bug #11661: "FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")" added
Updated by Loïc Dachary over 8 years ago
- Subject changed from "osd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")" in rados-hammer-distro-basic-openstack to "osd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")"
Updated by Loïc Dachary over 8 years ago
- Subject changed from "osd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")" to osd/PG.cc: 3837: FAILED assert(0 == "Running incompatible OSD")
Updated by Sage Weil about 8 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved