Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090723/b4facd66/attachment.html
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:39AM -0500, Mitch Felton wrote:> Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6?I believe it does not. Nico --
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:53 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:39AM -0500, Mitch Felton wrote: > > Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6? > > I believe it does not. >this should be work for tcp LND, but never tested before. -- Alexey Lyashkov <Alexey.Lyashkov at Sun.COM> Sun Microsystems
In message <1248420309.21455.12.camel at berloga.shadowland>,Alexey Lyashkov write s:>On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:53 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:39AM -0500, Mitch Felton wrote: >> > Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6? >> >> I believe it does not. >> >this should be work for tcp LND, but never tested before.i doubt it. when i looked at the lustre code i only saw AF_INET. if there was any sort of ipv6 support there would have to be atleast a little mention of AF_INET6 for some of the socket operations.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 07:37:11AM -0400, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:> In message <1248420309.21455.12.camel at berloga.shadowland>,Alexey Lyashkov write > s: > >On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:53 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:39AM -0500, Mitch Felton wrote: > >> > Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6? > >> > >> I believe it does not. > >> > >this should be work for tcp LND, but never tested before. > > i doubt it. when i looked at the lustre code i only saw AF_INET. > if there was any sort of ipv6 support there would have to be atleast > a little mention of AF_INET6 for some of the socket operations.Exactly. Also, LNET has its own addressing scheme using 64-bits, of which 32 are used to hold an IP address in the case of IPv4. To add IPv6 support with addresses other than IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses would require significant changes[*]. But IPv6 with IPv4-mapped addresses should be feasible with changes localized to the sock LND. We should have a plan for IPv6 though. [*] If we want to keep the model of including the IP address in the LNET NID, then the LNET NID will have to grow much larger. That would be a huge change. But we could add a layer of indirection so that the LNET NIDs don''t need to change size. In that case most of the changes to support IPv6 with non-IPv4-mapped addresses ought to be fairly well localized to the sock LNDs + an addressing service to manage the indirection. Nico --
In message <20090724153810.GF1020 at Sun.COM>,Nicolas Williams writes:>We should have a plan for IPv6 though.you should HAVE ipv6 support. this would give you a leg up on other clustered filesystems. some organizations require ipv6 support for future products. you would now have another reason lustre is "better".
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:34 -0400, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:>I am sure this response is not going to come with any amount of surprise however...> you should HAVE ipv6 support.Indeed we should. However, we have a long list of stuff that we should have. What we do have is a finite resource to try to empty that list.> you would now have another reason lustre is "better".Indeed. There is lots on that list that would make Lustre "better" and many of them would provide a more immediate "bang" than ipv6 support. We always have to balance the items on that list with what will provide the widest customer impact. We are always very welcome to and appreciative of patches though. 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/20090724/279745f1/attachment.bin