Lustre discuss - Aug 2012 - Interoperable issues between 1.8.6 and 2.1

Hello,

I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running 1.8 will
successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre servers running lustre
2.1.  are there any known issues?

AND

Are there any known issues upgrading the oss/ost and mds/mdt systems from 1.8 to
2.1?  There''s already > 16 terabytes in place...

--jason


Jason Brooks
971-238-3924
brookjas at ohsu.edu<mailto:brookjas at ohsu.edu>
Oregon Health Sciences University
Center for Spoken Language Understanding

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20120822/786cdd0e/attachment.html

>I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running
>1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre
>servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
I forget where that was written down; I can report that it works fine.
WITH THE EXCEPTION of ia64 1.8-based clients; that totally doesn''t
work.
>Are there any known issues upgrading the oss/ost and mds/mdt systems
>from 1.8 to 2.1?  There''s already > 16 terabytes in place...
Nope, it was basically umount->upgrade->mount for us.

--Ken

Hello, 

Thanks for your reply!  

When you refer to ia64, are you referring to the itanium systems?  

--jason

On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>> I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running
>> 1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre
>> servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
> 
> I forget where that was written down; I can report that it works fine.
> WITH THE EXCEPTION of ia64 1.8-based clients; that totally doesn''t
work.
> 
>> Are there any known issues upgrading the oss/ost and mds/mdt systems
>> from 1.8 to 2.1?  There''s already > 16 terabytes in
place...
> 
> Nope, it was basically umount->upgrade->mount for us.
> 
> --Ken

Hello Dylan,

Thank you very much for your reply!  This gives me a good idea how to proceed.

--jason

On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:27 PM, dylan wrote:
> I got it in the Chapter 16 of "lustre_manual-2.x.pdf". I had
tested the
> different configuration.
> as follows:
> OSS/OST        MGS/MDT          Client       Status
> lustre-2.1.2     lustre-2.1.2        lustre-1.8.5      OK
> 2.1.2             1.8.5             1.8.5         OK
> 2.1.2             1.8.5             2.1.2         NO
> 1.8.5             2.1.2             1.8.5         OK
> 1.8.5             2.1.2             2.1.2         OK 
> -----????-----
> ???: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org
> [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] ?? Ken Hornstein
> ????: 2012?8?23? 9:00
> ???: Jason Brooks
> ??: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> ??: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Interoperable issues between 1.8.6 and 2.1
> 
>> I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running
>> 1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre 
>> servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
> 
> I forget where that was written down; I can report that it works fine.
> WITH THE EXCEPTION of ia64 1.8-based clients; that totally doesn''t
work.
> 
>> Are there any known issues upgrading the oss/ost and mds/mdt systems 
>> from 1.8 to 2.1?  There''s already > 16 terabytes in
place...
> 
> Nope, it was basically umount->upgrade->mount for us.
> 
> --Ken
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>

>When you refer to ia64, are you referring to the itanium systems?  
I''m referring to systems where "uname -p" returns
"ia64".  Is that
itanium?  No idea.

--Ken

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:10:37AM -0400, Ken Hornstein
wrote:
> >When you refer to ia64, are you referring to the itanium systems?  
> 
> I''m referring to systems where "uname -p" returns
"ia64".  Is that
> itanium?  No idea.
Yes, ia64 is the Itanium processor family.

Johann
-- 
Johann Lombardi
Whamcloud, Inc.
www.whamcloud.com

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:00:17 -0400
Ken Hornstein <kenh at cmf.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> >I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running
> >1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre
> >servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
> 
> I forget where that was written down; I can report that it works fine.
> WITH THE EXCEPTION of ia64 1.8-based clients; that totally doesn''t
work.
when i looked at this briefly i believe the problem was that the ia64
was fetching a page size (16k for the ia64) from the MDS.  the 2.x
MDS replies with a 4k page and the ia64 client thinks this a short
read.  this wouldnt be hard to fix for the ia64 but didnt seem like it
was worth the trouble.

On 2012-08-23, at 7:45 AM, chas williams - CONTRACTOR
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:00:17 -0400
> Ken Hornstein <kenh at cmf.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> 
>>> I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client
running
>>> 1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre
>>> servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
>> 
>> I forget where that was written down; I can report that it works fine.
>> WITH THE EXCEPTION of ia64 1.8-based clients; that totally
doesn''t work.
> 
> when i looked at this briefly i believe the problem was that the ia64
> was fetching a page size (16k for the ia64) from the MDS.  the 2.x
> MDS replies with a 4k page and the ia64 client thinks this a short
> read.  this wouldnt be hard to fix for the ia64 but didnt seem like it
> was worth the trouble.
I think this was already fixed with change http://review.whamcloud.com/3014
(commit 5318af0793cf4d6b824d39e38225b9153ce0073b), though AFAIK the patch was
only landed for the upcoming 2.3.0.  I didn''t know anyone still used
ia64 machines :-).

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger                       Whamcloud, Inc.
Principal Lustre Engineer            http://www.whamcloud.com/