"John R. Dunning" writes: > > Lustre 1.6 (at least the client end) doesn't even really *require* all those > kernel patches, ie they do support the idea of a patchless client. The issue > is that lustre changes the logic involved in various kinds of fs operations, > including anything related to lookups, so as to short-circuit much of the wor > k > involved when it figures out that it can do so. Running the client without > the patches will work, but it won't give you the performance that you'd get > with the patches. So odds are anybody who's interested in running lustre in > the first place probably wants the patches too.
I hadn't realized that the patchless client was potentially lower-performance than a patched client. Are you sure about that? How much of a difference do you think it is? Are you using version 1.6 or 1.4? > > We at sicortex are planning on rolling out a gentoo-based cluster that depend > s > heavily on lustre, so we've spent a fair bit of time banging on it. I'm > pretty sure we understand it at this point. We'll know for sure soon :-} Do you get support from CFS? It seems pretty clear that you do not. What kernel versions do you use? -bryan -- [email protected] mailing list
