#uname -a Linux OSS1_MASTER 2.6.9-67.0.7.EL_lustre.1.6.5smp #1 SMP Mon May 12 22:02:50 EDT 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux mkfs.lustre --fsname=test --mdt --mgs --mgsnode=MDS at tcp0 /dev/sdb1 // sucess mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt //success mount /dev/sda3 on / type ext3 (rw) none on /proc type proc (rw) none on /sys type sysfs (rw) none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw) sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw) /dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (0) Is the "/dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (0)" right? When I used HA to start Lustre, it became "/dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (rw)". Do they have difference? Why? Thank you!
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:55 -0700, Johnlya wrote:> mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt //successTypically one doesn''t call mount.lustre directly but calls mount and mount will call mount.lustre. See if that makes a difference for your test case. 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/20081030/1fc4de3c/attachment.bin
Mr. Brian, I test it fowllowing: 1. mount -t lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt result: dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (rw) 2.mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt result: dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (0) Please tell me why? Does it effect Lustre error and problem? Thank you very much! On Thur, 2008-10-30, at 8:29, "Brian J. Murrell" <Brian.Murr... at Sun.COM> wrote:> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:55 -0700, Johnlya wrote: > > mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt //success > > Typically one doesn''t call mount.lustre directly but calls mount and > mount will call mount.lustre. > > See if that makes a difference for your test case. > > b. > > signature.asc > < 1KViewDownload > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-disc... at lists.lustre.orghttp://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 06:03 -0700, Johnlya wrote:> I test it fowllowing: > 1. mount -t lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt > result: > dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (rw)As you would expect, yes?> 2.mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt > result: > dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (0) > > Please tell me why?Because mount.lustre is not really meant to be called directly but rather as a helper for mount. You could use strace on your "mount -t lustre" command and see how it''s calling mount.lustre to get some more insight.> Does it effect Lustre error and problem?I''m not sure. 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/20081030/4a11ff75/attachment-0001.bin
I found its explain "mount.lustre is used to start a Lustre client or target service. This program should not be called directly; rather it is a helper program invoked through mount(8)." in Manual. This is the same that you said. mount.lustre: ??0?? it can be think of "(rw)", but it doesn''t mount loop device. So I think that Lustre should prevent users from call directly the command "mount.lustre". Like as the command "mount.smbfs" is not called directly. Thank you! On Thu, 2008-10-30, at 21:38, "Brian J. Murrell" <Brian.Murr... at Sun.COM> wrote:> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 06:03 -0700, Johnlya wrote: > > I test it fowllowing: > > 1. mount -t lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt > > result: > > dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (rw) > > As you would expect, yes? > > > 2.mount.lustre /dev/sdb1 /mnt/mdt > > result: > > dev/sdb1 on /mnt/mdt type lustre (0) > > > Please tell me why? > > Because mount.lustre is not really meant to be called directly but > rather as a helper for mount. You could use strace on your "mount -t > lustre" command and see how it''s calling mount.lustre to get some more > insight. > > > Does it effect Lustre error and problem? > > I''m not sure. > > b. > > signature.asc > < 1KViewDownload > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-disc... at lists.lustre.orghttp://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss