Is there any up-to-date documentation on lustre available, I am trying to read myself in before I try to set up a lustre cluster but the documentation on the website seems to be 2-3 years or older. As far as I understood a while ago on IRC stable lustre is 1.8.x while 2.x is not considered stable yet? The cluster I will be setting up will be running CentOS6 for the lustre machines (unless debian is after all an option). Thanks, Eli
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Parinay Kondekar <parinay_kondekar-qCPWdT176rRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> You can refer to > > > http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/index.html OR > > http://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml > > Whatsoever that is available on lustre.org is still *very* relevant.Ah, ok because it talks about Q2 2010 as "the future", and download links there are broken. Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore?> > About releases, > http://lustre.opensfs.org/download-lustre/ > > HTH > parinayThanks, Eli> > > > On 12 June 2013 15:58, E.S. Rosenberg <esr+lustre-ed8gSyzkC85vlA8e7MYcDA@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> Is there any up-to-date documentation on lustre available, I am trying >> to read myself in before I try to set up a lustre cluster but the >> documentation on the website seems to be 2-3 years or older. >> >> As far as I understood a while ago on IRC stable lustre is 1.8.x while >> 2.x is not considered stable yet? >> The cluster I will be setting up will be running CentOS6 for the >> lustre machines (unless debian is after all an option). >> >> Thanks, >> Eli >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > >
You can find the maintained version of the manual at http://lustre.opensfs.org/documentation/ As per the recent OpenSFS survey, 1.8.x releases are still the most commonly deployed, but more people are running Lustre 2.x releases. There are people in production on Lustre 2.2 and Lustre 2.3, but Lustre 2.1.x is the most commonly selected 2.x release (CEA, LLNL, and NASA are all in production on a 2.1.x release, for example) as it has been a maintenance release stream - see http://lustre.opensfs.org/download-lustre/ On 6/12/13 3:28 AM, "E.S. Rosenberg" <esr+lustre-ed8gSyzkC85vlA8e7MYcDA@public.gmane.org> wrote:>Is there any up-to-date documentation on lustre available, I am trying >to read myself in before I try to set up a lustre cluster but the >documentation on the website seems to be 2-3 years or older. > >As far as I understood a while ago on IRC stable lustre is 1.8.x while >2.x is not considered stable yet? >The cluster I will be setting up will be running CentOS6 for the >lustre machines (unless debian is after all an option). > >Thanks, >Eli >_______________________________________________ >Lustre-discuss mailing list >Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
LLNL also has two large (55PB and 7PB) file systems running Lustre 2.4 in production on our BlueGene/Q systems Sequoia and Vulcan. We will also be transitioning all of our other production file systems (16+ PB) to Lustre 2.4 later this summer, so I would encourage you to look at 2.4 since you are building a new system. Starting with a 1.8 file system and upgrading to a 2.x system will make it difficult to use some of the newer features of Lustre. If you want to take advantage of any of the 2.x features, I would not start at 1.8. -Marc ---- D. Marc Stearman Lustre Operations Lead stearman2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org 925.423.9670 On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:02 AM, "Jones, Peter A" <peter.a.jones-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> You can find the maintained version of the manual at > http://lustre.opensfs.org/documentation/ > > As per the recent OpenSFS survey, 1.8.x releases are still the most > commonly deployed, but more people are running Lustre 2.x releases. > > There are people in production on Lustre 2.2 and Lustre 2.3, but Lustre > 2.1.x is the most commonly selected 2.x release (CEA, LLNL, and NASA are > all in production on a 2.1.x release, for example) as it has been a > maintenance release stream - see http://lustre.opensfs.org/download-lustre/ > > > On 6/12/13 3:28 AM, "E.S. Rosenberg" <esr+lustre-ed8gSyzkC85vlA8e7MYcDA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Is there any up-to-date documentation on lustre available, I am trying >> to read myself in before I try to set up a lustre cluster but the >> documentation on the website seems to be 2-3 years or older. >> >> As far as I understood a while ago on IRC stable lustre is 1.8.x while >> 2.x is not considered stable yet? >> The cluster I will be setting up will be running CentOS6 for the >> lustre machines (unless debian is after all an option). >> >> Thanks, >> Eli >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote:> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore?Not as far as I can tell. The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal instead: http://lustre.opensfs.org Chris
Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards to update lustre.org Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: > >> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? > > Not as far as I can tell. > > The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal instead: > > http://lustre.opensfs.org > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Kevin, I don''t think that something that might happen in the future changes the accuracy of my statement. Chris On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote:> Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards to update lustre.org > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: >> >>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? >> >> Not as far as I can tell. >> >> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal instead: >> >> http://lustre.opensfs.org >> >> Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >
The volume of information present on lustre.org is *huge* and "very helpful". Off course an update w.r.t. current development would be great. _and_ keeping everything at one place would be nice. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Christopher J. Morrone <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org>wrote:> Kevin, > > I don''t think that something that might happen in the future changes the > accuracy of my statement. > > Chris > > On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote: > > Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards > to update lustre.org > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" < > morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > >> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: > >> > >>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? > >> > >> Not as far as I can tell. > >> > >> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal > instead: > >> > >> http://lustre.opensfs.org > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lustre-discuss mailing list > >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >-- cheers Akam _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
There may be useful information on lustre.org, but "up to date documentation" isn''t it. The "Lustre Operations Manual" link on there points to http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/index.html which is not helpful - the differences between that documentation and current documentation caused some confusion for our organization''s recent discussions about upgrading to Lustre 2. Specifically wording in the beginning of http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/UpgradingLustre.html "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients support a mix of 1.8 and 2.0 OSTs, not all OSSs need to be upgraded at the same time" versus http://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#upgradinglustre "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients can interoperate with 2.x servers, but the servers should all be upgraded at the same time." Even if the lustre.org documentation is correct for Lustre 2.0, I don''t think anyone recommends upgrading to that version right now. John john.richards-VHMhV6EUlY/rea2nFwT0Kw@public.gmane.org On Jun 13, 2013, at 01:44 , Akam <azurelustre-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> The volume of information present on lustre.org is *huge* and "very helpful". > > Off course an update w.r.t. current development would be great. > _and_ keeping everything at one place would be nice. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Christopher J. Morrone <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Kevin, > > I don''t think that something that might happen in the future changes the > accuracy of my statement. > > Chris > > On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote: > > Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards to update lustre.org > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > >> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: > >> > >>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? > >> > >> Not as far as I can tell. > >> > >> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal instead: > >> > >> http://lustre.opensfs.org > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lustre-discuss mailing list > >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > -- > cheers > Akam > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Since it''s a new install I will probably try 2.4, I''m still waiting for some hardware to start testing on. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM, John Richards <john.richards-VHMhV6EUlY/rea2nFwT0Kw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> There may be useful information on lustre.org, but "up to date > documentation" isn''t it. > > The "Lustre Operations Manual" link on there points to > > http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/index.html > > which is not helpful - the differences between that documentation and > current documentation caused some confusion for our organization''s recent > discussions about upgrading to Lustre 2. Specifically wording in the > beginning of > > http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/UpgradingLustre.html > > "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients support a mix of 1.8 and 2.0 OSTs, not all OSSs > need to be upgraded at the same time" > > versus > > http://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#upgradinglustre > > "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients can interoperate with 2.x servers, but the > servers should all be upgraded at the same time." > > Even if the lustre.org documentation is correct for Lustre 2.0, I don''t > think anyone recommends upgrading to that version right now. > > John > john.richards-VHMhV6EUlY/rea2nFwT0Kw@public.gmane.org > > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 01:44 , Akam <azurelustre-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > The volume of information present on lustre.org is *huge* and "very > helpful". > > Off course an update w.r.t. current development would be great. > _and_ keeping everything at one place would be nice. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Christopher J. Morrone <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> > wrote: >> >> Kevin, >> >> I don''t think that something that might happen in the future changes the >> accuracy of my statement. >> >> Chris >> >> On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote: >> > Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards >> > to update lustre.org >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" >> > <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: >> >> >> >>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? >> >> >> >> Not as far as I can tell. >> >> >> >> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal >> >> instead: >> >> >> >> http://lustre.opensfs.org >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >> >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > > -- > cheers > Akam > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >
Stay tuned. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:48 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Kevin, > > I don''t think that something that might happen in the future changes the accuracy of my statement. > > Chris > > On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote: >> Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards to update lustre.org >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone" <morrone2-i2BcT+NCU+M@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote: >>> >>>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore? >>> >>> Not as far as I can tell. >>> >>> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal instead: >>> >>> http://lustre.opensfs.org >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lustre-discuss mailing list >>> Lustre-discuss-aLEFhgZF4x6X6Mz3xDxJMA@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >