We are about to upgrade our standalone MGS/MDS (no failover) from 1.6.4.2 to 1.8.0.1. I''m a little confused by section 13.2.4 of the Lustre 1.8 Operations Manual. What is the purpose of the mdt1# tunefs.lustre --mgs --mdt --fsname=testfs /dev/sda1 command? I assume it is writing this information to the MDT (/dev/ sda1) but wan''t that information alright put there when the file system was created under 1.6.4.2? Has the format changed between the two versions? Why is the tunefs.lustre step necessary? I''m concerned about overwriting *anything* on the MDT and rendering our file system unusable. I just want to be sure we understand what we are doing. The paragraph labeled "Description" in section 32.2 (describing tunefs.lustre) did not exactly give me a warm-fuzzy. BTW, we already have a number of 1.8.0.1 clients running against the 1.6.4.2 servers. Working great so far! Thanks, Charlie Taylor UF HPC Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090722/3243a384/attachment.html
Brian J. Murrell
2009-Jul-23 13:47 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] 1.6.4.2 -> 1.8.0.1 Upgrade Question
Charles, I have opened bug 20246 to have that section of the manual reviewed. Thanx for pointing that out. b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090723/911f0135/attachment.bin
Thanks Brian, but I''m still a little unsure of the tunefs step in the upgrade. Is it actually necessary as part of the MDS upgrade? Is it safe and do we do the same when upgrading the OSSs i.e. do we have to run tunefs.lustre on each OST or just the MDT? Thanks, Charlie Taylor UF HPC Center On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:> Charles, > > I have opened bug 20246 to have that section of the manual reviewed. > > Thanx for pointing that out. > > b. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss> We are about to upgrade our standalone MGS/MDS (no failover) from > 1.6.4.2 to 1.8.0.1. I''m a little confused by section 13.2.4 of > the Lustre 1.8 Operations Manual. What is the purpose of the > > mdt1# tunefs.lustre --mgs --mdt --fsname=testfs /dev/sda1 > > command? I assume it is writing this information to the MDT (/dev/ > sda1) but wan''t that information alright put there when the file > system was created under 1.6.4.2? Has the format changed between > the two versions? Why is the tunefs.lustre step necessary? I''m > concerned about overwriting *anything* on the MDT and rendering our > file system unusable. I just want to be sure we understand what we > are doing. > > The paragraph labeled "Description" in section 32.2 (describing > tunefs.lustre) did not exactly give me a warm-fuzzy. > > BTW, we already have a number of 1.8.0.1 clients running against the > 1.6.4.2 servers. Working great so far! > > Thanks, > > Charlie Taylor > UF HPC Center-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090723/26686937/attachment.html
Brian J. Murrell
2009-Jul-23 14:53 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] 1.6.4.2 -> 1.8.0.1 Upgrade Question
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:44 -0400, Charles Taylor wrote:> > Thanks Brian, but I''m still a little unsure of the tunefs step in the > upgrade. Is it actually necessary as part of the MDS upgrade?I don''t know (as I said in the bug), but once the section is reviewed by somebody who knows the upgrade details in more depth than I do, I am sure that question will be answered. Or maybe somebody else with the details here knows. b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090723/6c03353c/attachment-0001.bin
Ms. Megan Larko
2009-Jul-23 15:35 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] 1.6.4.2 -> 1.8.0.1 Upgrade Question
Hello Charlie and others,
I cannot speak for the whys and wherefores, but I know that my upgrade
of an MGS/MDT disk from a smaller Gb volume to a larger Gb volume did
not work until the tunefs.lustre command was run as you have it
referenced below. In addition, I also had to go to the OSS and for
each OST under the purview of that MDT I had to run the command
"tunefs.lustre --writeconf /dev/{sdX of OST}". Then everything
worked just fine and dandy (although I did have to run the
tunefs.lustre command on one OST 2x because it would not appear in any
lctl device_list until I ran the tunefs.lustre command on the OST a
second time).
So I don''t know why, but it works.
megan
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:49:18 -0400
From: Charles Taylor <taylor at hpc.ufl.edu>
Subject: [Lustre-discuss] 1.6.4.2 -> 1.8.0.1 Upgrade Question
To: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Message-ID: <B9F51ECF-CDCC-43D8-A577-2B61EA58200D at hpc.ufl.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We are about to upgrade our standalone MGS/MDS (no failover) from
1.6.4.2 to 1.8.0.1. I''m a little confused by section 13.2.4 of the
Lustre 1.8 Operations Manual. What is the purpose of the
mdt1# tunefs.lustre --mgs --mdt --fsname=testfs /dev/sda1
command? I assume it is writing this information to the MDT (/dev/
sda1) but wan''t that information alright put there when the file
system was created under 1.6.4.2? Has the format changed between
the two versions? Why is the tunefs.lustre step necessary? I''m
concerned about overwriting *anything* on the MDT and rendering our
file system unusable. I just want to be sure we understand what we
are doing.
The paragraph labeled "Description" in section 32.2 (describing
tunefs.lustre) did not exactly give me a warm-fuzzy.
BTW, we already have a number of 1.8.0.1 clients running against the
1.6.4.2 servers. Working great so far!
Thanks,
Charlie Taylor
UF HPC Center