Lustre 1.6.4.2 is now available for download. This is a maintenance release containing fixes for: bug 14631: Umounting OSTs before MDT causes objects > 1 to be treated as orphans and deleted on remount https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14631 bug 14529: MDT failed when upgraded from 1.6.3 to 1.6.4.1 https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14529 The changelog and release notes can be read here: http://www.clusterfs.com/changelog-1.6.html Partners, customers, and evaluators can download this release from the usual location: http://www.clusterfs.com/download.html Thank you for your assistance; as always, you can report issues via Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/) -- The Lustre Team --
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Jody McIntyre wrote:> Lustre 1.6.4.2 is now available for download. This is a maintenance > release containing fixes for:Hi Jody, I notice that the rhel kernels are quite old: 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL is from rhel4 update 5 and 2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 is from rhel5, before update 1. The latest snapshots are rhel4 update 6 (2.6.9-67.0.1.EL) and rhel5 update 1 (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5) respectively. What is the reason for staying so far behind the latest kernels? (We have a problem with a bug in the e1000 driver on both the older kernels - but there are also a couple of security fixes in the newer kernels that should be of interest to everybody) thanks, /Per -- Per Lundqvist National Supercomputer Centre Link?ping University, Sweden http://www.nsc.liu.se
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:37 +0100, Per Lundqvist wrote:> > Hi Jody,Hi Per. I''m Jody but I will try to answer.> I notice that the rhel kernels are quite old: 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL is > from rhel4 update 5 and 2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 is from rhel5, before update 1. > The latest snapshots are rhel4 update 6 (2.6.9-67.0.1.EL) and rhel5 update > 1 (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5) respectively. > > What is the reason for staying so far behind the latest kernels?1.6.4.2 (and 1.6.4.1) are bugfix releases. They contain only the most minimal changes needed to fix the bugs. This it give comfort and re-assurance there will be no ripple effects from other unneeded updates when upgrading.> (We have > a problem with a bug in the e1000 driver on both the older kernels - but > there are also a couple of security fixes in the newer kernels that should > be of interest to everybody)I believe new kernels have been scheduled for 1.6.5. I''m not positive which ones, but istr seeing new kernels patches landing for the next 1.6 release. Cheers, b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20080122/f01f2b74/attachment-0002.bin
Hi, On Dienstag 22 Januar 2008, Brian J. Murrell wrote:> I believe new kernels have been scheduled for 1.6.5. I''m not positive > which ones, but istr seeing new kernels patches landing for the next 1.6 > release.I''m waiting for a RHEL5.1 client, too, and somewhat hoped it would come along with 1.6.4.2. What is the targetted (approximate) release date for 1.6.5? Thanks, Erich -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20080122/b975071f/attachment-0002.bin
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 19:27 +0100, Erich Focht wrote:> Hi,Hi Erich,> I''m waiting for a RHEL5.1 client, too, and somewhat hoped it would come > along with 1.6.4.2. What is the targetted (approximate) release date > for 1.6.5?I''m afraid I don''t know that. Perhaps somebody more closely integrated in the release process can comment. b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20080122/ad4d425f/attachment-0002.bin
Hi Per, On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Per Lundqvist wrote:> Hi Jody, I notice that the rhel kernels are quite old: 2.6.9-55.0.9.EL is > from rhel4 update 5 and 2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 is from rhel5, before update 1. > The latest snapshots are rhel4 update 6 (2.6.9-67.0.1.EL) and rhel5 update > 1 (2.6.18-53.1.4.el5) respectively. > > What is the reason for staying so far behind the latest kernels? (We have > a problem with a bug in the e1000 driver on both the older kernels - but > there are also a couple of security fixes in the newer kernels that should > be of interest to everybody)Indeed. 1.6.4.2 was a bugfixes-only release with minimal changes from 1.6.4.1. The kernel updates are in the tree for 1.6.5, along with many other less critical bug fixes. We could do a 1.6.4.3 release with just the kernel updates, but we have not received any requests for this from paying customers and we have lots of other things to work on. Cheers, Jody> thanks, > /Per > > -- > Per Lundqvist > > National Supercomputer Centre > Link?ping University, Sweden > > http://www.nsc.liu.se--
On 22 Jan 2008, at 18:27, Erich Focht wrote:> I''m waiting for a RHEL5.1 client, too, and somewhat hoped it would > come > along with 1.6.4.2. What is the targetted (approximate) release date > for 1.6.5?There''s patches in bugzilla somewhere for rhel5.1 support if you need it before the next release. I don''t have the bug number to hand.