After reading http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php?title=Patchless_Client it is my understanding that it is now (2.6.9-78.0.5.EL and lustre-1.6.6) ok to run patchless client on EL4 (64-bit). This based on the fact that the problems described on the wiki-page were fixed in versions older than mentioned above (last bug/comment was for -55). Is this accurate or is the wiki missing information here? (Brian wrote in july that EL4 simply was too old...) Anybody running this already? Tia, Peter -------------- 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/20081106/a968f840/attachment.bin
We have been running this for a while. Brock Palen www.umich.edu/~brockp Center for Advanced Computing brockp at umich.edu (734)936-1985 On Nov 6, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:> After reading http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php? > title=Patchless_Client it is my > understanding that it is now (2.6.9-78.0.5.EL and lustre-1.6.6) ok > to run > patchless client on EL4 (64-bit). > > This based on the fact that the problems described on the wiki-page > were fixed > in versions older than mentioned above (last bug/comment was for -55). > > Is this accurate or is the wiki missing information here? (Brian > wrote in july > that EL4 simply was too old...) Anybody running this already? > > Tia, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:54 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:> After reading http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php?title=Patchless_Client it is my > understanding that it is now (2.6.9-78.0.5.EL and lustre-1.6.6) ok to run > patchless client on EL4 (64-bit).Yes.> This based on the fact that the problems described on the wiki-page were fixed > in versions older than mentioned above (last bug/comment was for -55).Fixed in versions newer. If my recollection of the RHEL kernel release schedule is right, -67 and newer are good to use. Or maybe it''s -55 and newer. In any case, your -78 is in the safe zone. 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/20081106/78aa2309/attachment.bin
On Thursday 06 November 2008, Brian J. Murrell wrote:> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:54 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote: > > After reading http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php?title=Patchless_Client it > > is my understanding that it is now (2.6.9-78.0.5.EL and lustre-1.6.6) ok > > to run patchless client on EL4 (64-bit). > > Yes. > > > This based on the fact that the problems described on the wiki-page were > > fixed in versions older than mentioned above (last bug/comment was for > > -55). > > Fixed in versions newer. If my recollection of the RHEL kernel release > schedule is right, -67 and newer are good to use. Or maybe it''s -55 and > newer. In any case, your -78 is in the safe zone.Great that it should work now :-) Maybe this could be cleared up on the wiki? The wiki says >=-55 is ok. You said in July:>> Does anyone know if patchless clients are available in lustre >> 1.6.5.x. We want to use 2.6.9-67-redhat. Thanks for your help. > > No. The 2.6.9 kernel is too old to support the patchless client. You > need to upgrade to either RHEL5 or SLES10 on the clients for patchless > clients.I''m certainly not trying to be difficult here, just wanting to clear the fog. /Peter -------------- 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/20081106/1f5dfb73/attachment.bin
On Thursday 06 November 2008, Brock Palen wrote:> We have been running this for a while. > > Brock PalenThanks for the data point. What are the exact kernel and lustre versions you''ve been running (presumably) ok? /Peter -------------- 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/20081106/3e780c98/attachment.bin
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 17:16 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:> > Maybe this could be cleared up on the wiki? The wiki says >=-55 is ok. You > said in July: > > >> Does anyone know if patchless clients are available in lustre > >> 1.6.5.x. We want to use 2.6.9-67-redhat. Thanks for your help. > > > > No. The 2.6.9 kernel is too old to support the patchless client. You > > need to upgrade to either RHEL5 or SLES10 on the clients for patchless > > clients.This was likely me just not knowing at the time that RedHat had actually fixed the problems in their 2.6.9 kernel that was making use of the patchless client unreliable. 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/20081106/f337c551/attachment.bin
2.6.9-78.0.1.ELsmp Lustre-1.6.5.1 Brock Palen www.umich.edu/~brockp Center for Advanced Computing brockp at umich.edu (734)936-1985 On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:> On Thursday 06 November 2008, Brock Palen wrote: >> We have been running this for a while. >> >> Brock Palen > > Thanks for the data point. What are the exact kernel and lustre > versions > you''ve been running (presumably) ok? > > /Peter