Lustre discuss - Apr 2009 - Which RHEL5 version for Lustre 1.8 GA release ??

We are patiently waiting for signs of the Lustre 1.8 GA release (last  
day of the month)!
Can anyone tell me what RHEL5 kernel version will be used to build the  
1.8 patched kernel and RPMs when they become available for download  
from the Sun website?

-------
Yemi

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 13:18 -0700, Adeyemi Adesanya
wrote:
> We are patiently waiting for signs of the Lustre 1.8 GA release (last  
> day of the month)!
And we are anxious to release it, but we don''t want to release
something
with serious bugs, so it''s better to wait.  :-)
> Can anyone tell me what RHEL5 kernel version will be used to build the  
> 1.8 patched kernel
It appears from the source that it is 2.6.18-92.1.17.el5.
> and RPMs when they become available for download  
> from the Sun website?
When they pass all of our QA tests and show no serious regressions. 
I''m
afraid I can''t give you a date when that will be because one never
knows
what the results of an ongoing QA cycle will be until it''s done.

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/20090430/5b396ab3/attachment.bin

Hi Brian.

I was hoping that the 1.8 GA release would be based on  
2.6.18-128.1.6.el5 or newer. We have been informed of a root exploit  
in the earlier RHEL5 kernels. Should I consider grabbing a 1.8 release  
from CVS and start building against a more recent kernel?

------
Yemi

On Apr 30, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 13:18 -0700, Adeyemi Adesanya wrote:
>> We are patiently waiting for signs of the Lustre 1.8 GA release (last
>> day of the month)!
>
> And we are anxious to release it, but we don''t want to release  
> something
> with serious bugs, so it''s better to wait.  :-)
>
>> Can anyone tell me what RHEL5 kernel version will be used to build  
>> the
>> 1.8 patched kernel
>
> It appears from the source that it is 2.6.18-92.1.17.el5.
>
>> and RPMs when they become available for download
>> from the Sun website?
>
> When they pass all of our QA tests and show no serious regressions.   
> I''m
> afraid I can''t give you a date when that will be because one never
> knows
> what the results of an ongoing QA cycle will be until it''s done.
>
> b.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20090430/ff515b72/attachment.html

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 14:45 -0700, Adeyemi Adesanya
wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Brian.
> 
> 
> I was hoping that the 1.8 GA release would be based on
> 2.6.18-128.1.6.el5 or newer.
Yeah.  That will be coming in a subsequent release.  The problem is that
when 1.8.0 went into freeze the -92 release was current, and uprevving
the kernel during the QA would have delayed it even further.
> Should I consider grabbing a 1.8 release from CVS and start building
> against a more recent kernel?
You could try.  I''m not sure if any patches need to land to 1.8.0 to
support that newer kernel though.  If there is, it''s all in bugzilla.

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/20090430/d87f7318/attachment.bin

On Thursday 30 April 2009, Adeyemi Adesanya wrote:
> Hi Brian.
>
> I was hoping that the 1.8 GA release would be based on
> 2.6.18-128.1.6.el5 or newer. We have been informed of a root exploit
> in the earlier RHEL5 kernels. Should I consider grabbing a 1.8 release
> from CVS and start building against a more recent kernel?
I think you can live with the old kernel if you:

 1) use the updated udev package from 5.3
 2) remove the kernel module for SCTP (sctp.ko)

That said, I''d obviously prefer a 1.8 using a 5.3 kernel.

/Peter
> ------
> Yemi
-------------- 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/20090504/3f69e78f/attachment.bin