plfs_query not working for physical to logical?

[johnbent]

All,

Normally I use plfs_query to get a list of the droppings within a container. I think at one point Brett said that the consultants wanted it to work in reverse so that they could query a plfs physical dropping and get the logical path to the plfs file. Recently, I thought I needed this functionality as well but it appears to be no longer working:

[john.bent@lola-12-ib ~]$ plfs_query /mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow///passwd/hostdir.0/dropping.index.1397748223.108633.lola-12-ib.149851
Error: /mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow///passwd/hostdir.0/dropping.index.1397748223.108633.lola-12-ib.149851 is not in a PLFS mountpoint configured with 'workload n-1' or 'workload n-n' nor is it a physical dropping.

You can see that this is a valid dropping and that plfs_query from logical to physical works:

plfs_query /tmp/iod_plfs/passwd 
Physical file locations:
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow///passwd/hostdir.0
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd/meta
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd/hostdir.0
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd/.plfsaccess113918400
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow///passwd/hostdir.0/dropping.data.1397748223.108633.lola-12-ib.149851
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow///passwd/hostdir.0/dropping.index.1397748223.108633.lola-12-ib.149851
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd/meta/3075.3075.1397748223.128614.lola-12-ib
/mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical//passwd/version-tag.2.5.0rc1-dat.1.0-chk.4294967295

Here is the plfs_check_config:

[john.bent@lola-12-ib tools]$ plfs_check_config 
Config file /etc/plfsrc correctly parsed:
Num Hostdirs: 16
Threadpool size: 8
Write index buffer size (mbs): 16
Read index buffer size (mbs): 64
Num Mountpoints: 1
Lazy Stat: 1
Lazy Droppings: 1
Compress Contiguous: 0
Test Metalink: 0
Mount Point /tmp/iod_plfs :
    Expected Workload shared_file (N-1)
    Backends: canonical=1, shadow=4, total=5
    Backend: /mnt/lustre1/.plfs__canonical CANONICAL
    Backend: /mnt/lustre1/.plfs__shadow SHADOW
    Backend: /mnt/lustre4/.plfs__shadow SHADOW
    Backend: /mnt/lustre3/.plfs__shadow SHADOW
    Backend: /mnt/lustre2/.plfs__shadow SHADOW
    Glib buffer size (mbs): 16
    Checksum: 4294967295
SUCCESS

[atorrez]

John,

I tried this with plfs version 2.5 and it worked fine. I worked on an issue related to plfs_query prior to version 2.5. Perhaps that issue resulted in a a fix. I think you mentioned earlier that you were using 2.3 or 2.4?

Alfred

[johnbent]

My version was old. But I thought I'd reproduced on new but clearly I was confused. Thx for looking and sry for wasting your time.

On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Alfred Torrez notifications@github.com wrote:

John,

I tried this with plfs version 2.5 and it worked fine. I worked on an issue related to plfs_query prior to version 2.5. Perhaps that issue resulted in a a fix. I think you mentioned earlier that you were using 2.3 or 2.4?

Alfred

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[atorrez]

No problem. If you get a chance to try it on new again and it fails, let me know so that I can look into it further. Thanks.

From: John Bent <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: plfs/plfs-core <reply@reply.github.commailto:reply@reply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:06:20 -0700
To: plfs/plfs-core <plfs-core@noreply.github.commailto:plfs-core@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Alfred Torrez <atorrez@lanl.govmailto:atorrez@lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: [plfs-core] plfs_query not working for physical to logical? (#350)

My version was old. But I thought I'd reproduced on new but clearly I was confused. Thx for looking and sry for wasting your time.

On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Alfred Torrez <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

John,

I tried this with plfs version 2.5 and it worked fine. I worked on an issue related to plfs_query prior to version 2.5. Perhaps that issue resulted in a a fix. I think you mentioned earlier that you were using 2.3 or 2.4?

Alfred

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/350#issuecomment-47949855.