Samuel Aparicio
2011-Jan-08 01:05 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20110107/8f53c210/attachment.html
Colin Faber
2011-Jan-08 01:11 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
Hi, I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. -cf On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote:> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 > kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. > > Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath > Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency > 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. > office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website > http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Samuel Aparicio
2011-Jan-11 19:56 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
thanks for this note. is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote:> Hi, > > I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem > so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. > > -cf > > > On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: >> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 >> kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. >> >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website >> http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20110111/4be7aa68/attachment.html
Andreas Dilger
2011-Jan-11 20:07 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it''s release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio <saparicio at bccrc.ca> wrote:> thanks for this note. > is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? > > Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath > Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency > 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. > office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem >> so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. >> >> -cf >> >> >> On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: >>> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 >>> kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. >>> >>> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >>> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >>> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >>> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website >>> http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lustre-discuss mailing list >>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110111/0918e5ec/attachment-0001.html
Michael Shuey
2011-Jan-11 20:24 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? -- Mike Shuey On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger at whamcloud.com> wrote:> While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it''s > release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All > of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release > (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more > sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that > happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for > sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. > > Cheers, Andreas > On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio <saparicio at bccrc.ca> wrote: > > thanks for this note. > is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? > Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath > Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency > 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. > office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178:?lab > website?http://molonc.bccrc.ca > > > > > On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: > > Hi, > > I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem > so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. > > -cf > > > On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: > > Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 > > kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. > > Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath > > Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency > > 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. > > office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website > > http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lustre-discuss mailing list > > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >
Andreas Dilger
2011-Jan-11 20:55 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
The interoperability for 2.x releases has been the following for a long time: - 1.8 clients will work with 1.8 and 2.x servers (through some version of x to be determined), though they may not be able to take advantage of newer features being added to 2.x. In some cases, the 2.x features need to be turned off until all of the clients have been upgraded to 2.x. - 2.x clients will not be able to interoperate with 1.8 servers. That means that it is necessary to upgrade the servers to 2.x before the clients, or at the same time. Also, the upgrade process of the servers from 1.8 to 2.x is "disruptive" to the client - the client is evicted and automatically reconnects to the 2.x server using the new wire protocol. Any client doing RPCs at the time of the upgrade will get an IO error, so running jobs on the clients need to be at least paused. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 13:24, Michael Shuey <shuey at purdue.edu> wrote:> What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably > some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites > need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? > > -- > Mike Shuey > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger at whamcloud.com> wrote: >> While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it''s >> release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All >> of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release >> (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more >> sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that >> happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for >> sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. >> >> Cheers, Andreas >> On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio <saparicio at bccrc.ca> wrote: >> >> thanks for this note. >> is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab >> website http://molonc.bccrc.ca >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem >> so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. >> >> -cf >> >> >> On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: >> >> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 >> >> kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. >> >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website >> >> http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >>
Temple Jason
2011-Jan-12 06:55 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
And what impact do you forsee from this article? -----Original Message----- From: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Dilger Sent: marted?, 11. gennaio 2011 21:55 To: Michael Shuey Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels The interoperability for 2.x releases has been the following for a long time: - 1.8 clients will work with 1.8 and 2.x servers (through some version of x to be determined), though they may not be able to take advantage of newer features being added to 2.x. In some cases, the 2.x features need to be turned off until all of the clients have been upgraded to 2.x. - 2.x clients will not be able to interoperate with 1.8 servers. That means that it is necessary to upgrade the servers to 2.x before the clients, or at the same time. Also, the upgrade process of the servers from 1.8 to 2.x is "disruptive" to the client - the client is evicted and automatically reconnects to the 2.x server using the new wire protocol. Any client doing RPCs at the time of the upgrade will get an IO error, so running jobs on the clients need to be at least paused. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 13:24, Michael Shuey <shuey at purdue.edu> wrote:> What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably > some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites > need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? > > -- > Mike Shuey > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger at whamcloud.com> wrote: >> While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it''s >> release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All >> of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release >> (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more >> sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that >> happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for >> sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. >> >> Cheers, Andreas >> On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio <saparicio at bccrc.ca> wrote: >> >> thanks for this note. >> is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab >> website http://molonc.bccrc.ca >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem >> so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. >> >> -cf >> >> >> On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: >> >> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 >> >> kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. >> >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website >> >> http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >>_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Temple Jason
2011-Jan-12 06:56 UTC
[Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
I mean this article. Forgot to attach it: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/InsideHPC/~3/LI9iHNGoFZw/ -----Original Message----- From: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Dilger Sent: marted?, 11. gennaio 2011 21:55 To: Michael Shuey Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels The interoperability for 2.x releases has been the following for a long time: - 1.8 clients will work with 1.8 and 2.x servers (through some version of x to be determined), though they may not be able to take advantage of newer features being added to 2.x. In some cases, the 2.x features need to be turned off until all of the clients have been upgraded to 2.x. - 2.x clients will not be able to interoperate with 1.8 servers. That means that it is necessary to upgrade the servers to 2.x before the clients, or at the same time. Also, the upgrade process of the servers from 1.8 to 2.x is "disruptive" to the client - the client is evicted and automatically reconnects to the 2.x server using the new wire protocol. Any client doing RPCs at the time of the upgrade will get an IO error, so running jobs on the clients need to be at least paused. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 13:24, Michael Shuey <shuey at purdue.edu> wrote:> What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably > some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites > need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? > > -- > Mike Shuey > > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger at whamcloud.com> wrote: >> While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it''s >> release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All >> of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release >> (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more >> sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that >> happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for >> sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. >> >> Cheers, Andreas >> On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio <saparicio at bccrc.ca> wrote: >> >> thanks for this note. >> is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab >> website http://molonc.bccrc.ca >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I''ve built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem >> so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. >> >> -cf >> >> >> On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: >> >> Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 >> >> kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. >> >> Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath >> >> Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency >> >> 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. >> >> office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website >> >> http://molonc.bccrc.ca <http://molonc.bccrc.ca/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >>_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss