[lustre-discuss] [HPDD-discuss] Lustre Metric Graphing with Collectd

[Johan Guldmyr]

Hello, 

I adapted Brock's python script to output in collectd format.
In our environment means I don't have to run logstash on the lustre servers.

sauce:

https://github.com/martbhell/collectd-lustre

// Johan

- Forwarded Message -
From: "Joshua Rich" 
To: hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:25:26 AM
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] Lustre Metric Graphing with Logstash and Graphite

Hey Brock,

Thanks very much for sharing, I'll definitely be pouring over this!

Best regards,

Joshua Rich
HPC Systems Administrator
HPC Systems and Cloud Services

National Computational Infrastructure
The Australian National University
143 Ward Road
Acton, ACT, 2601

T +61 2 6125 2360
joshua.r...@anu.edu.au
http://nci.org.au


From: HPDD-discuss  on behalf of Brock Palen 

Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2014 2:25 PM
To: hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org
Subject: [HPDD-discuss] Lustre Metric Graphing with Logstash and Graphite

I finally wrote up and posted my config files for how I used Logstash and 
Graphite to track lustre data.

in all we are tracking over 53,000 lustre metrics, and these are just form the 
stats/md_stats files,

http://www.failureasaservice.com/2014/10/lustre-stats-with-graphite-and-logstash.html

Hopefully someone finds it useful.

Brock Palen
www.umich.edu/~brockp
CAEN Advanced Computing
XSEDE Campus Champion
bro...@umich.edu
(734)936-1985



___
HPDD-discuss mailing list
hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
___
HPDD-discuss mailing list
hpdd-disc...@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Re: [lustre-discuss] 1.8 client on 3.13.0 kernel

[Martin Hecht]

Hi Lewis,

Yes, for lustre 2.x you have to "upgrade" the OS, which basically means
a reinstall of a CentOS 6.x (because there is no upgade path across
major releases), then install the lustre packages and the lustre-patched
kernel, and then the pain begins.
We had a lot of trouble when we upgraded our lustre file systems from
1.8 to 2.4. I would recommend to consider a fresh install of lustre 2 on
a separate hardware, then migrate the data (1.8 clients are able to
mount lustre 2 file systems, but not the other way round, and for
working quota support you need 1.8.9) to the new file system, and
finally reformat the old file system with lustre 2 and use it for
testing or backups or whatever.
However, if buying new hardware is not an option, the upgrade is
possible, and depending on the history of the file system it might work
quite smoothly. Upgrading a freshly formatted lustre 1.8 with some
artificial test data worked without any problems in our tests before
doing the upgrade of the production file systems.

Regards,
Martin


On 09/08/2015 08:18 PM, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the response. Seems like we need to explore upgrading
> the servers. Do you happen to know how smooth that process is likely
> to be? We have lustre 1.8.8 on CentOS 5.4 there, I presume we need to
> upgrade the OS and then follow the upgrade procedure in the lustre
> manual, maybe it isn't such a big deal. Thanks again...
>
> -Lewis
>
> On 9/8/15 11:16 AM, Patrick Farrell wrote:
>> Lewis,
>>
>> My own understanding is you are out of luck - the 1.8 client cannot
>> realistically be brought forward to newer kernels.  Far too many
>> changes over too long a period.
>>
>> As far as version compatibility, I believe no newer clients will talk
>> to servers running 1.8.  If any will, they would be very early 2.x
>> versions, which won't support your desired kernel versions anyway.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Patrick
>>
>> 
>> From: lustre-discuss [lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] on
>> behalf of Lewis Hyatt [lhy...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:06 AM
>> To: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
>> Subject: [lustre-discuss] 1.8 client on 3.13.0 kernel
>>
>> Hello-
>>
>> We have a working 1.8 lustre cluster with which we are very happy.
>> The object
>> and metadata servers are running one of the recommended CentOS
>> distributions
>> (5.4), but the clients are all Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, with kernel 2.6.32.
>> It is not
>> feasible for us to change on the client side to a different distro
>> other than
>> Ubuntu, but we are about to go to Ubuntu 14, with kernel 3.13.0, for
>> reasons
>> unrelated to lustre. Unfortunately it seems that lustre 1.8 cannot be
>> built on
>> this kernel, we can't even get through the configure process without
>> a large
>> number of errors. The first one we hit is this:
>>
>> checking for
>> /lib/modules/3.13.0-63-generic/build/include/linux/autoconf.h... no
>>
>> But various attempts to hack around the errors as they come up have
>> not led to
>> much success. Is this something we can hope to achieve? I thought I
>> saw some
>> threads about a series of patches to support this kernel in lustre
>> 1.8 but I
>> haven't been able to find anything conclusive. We are really hoping
>> it is
>> possible to upgrade our clients without touching the lustre servers,
>> as we
>> don't want to disturb that production system which has been very
>> reliable for
>> us, and we don't have much in-house expertise with lustre or CentOS.
>> We were
>> able to build a newer lustre client on the 3.13 kernel, but it seems
>> it is not
>> willing to interact with the 1.8 servers.
>>
>> Thanks for any advice, much appreciated.
>>
>> -Lewis
>> ___
>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>>
> ___
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Re: [lustre-discuss] 1.8 client on 3.13.0 kernel

[Lewis Hyatt]

OK thanks for sharing your experience. Unfortunately I can't see a way for us 
to get duplicate hardware, so we will have to give it a shot; we were going to 
try the artificial test first as well. If you don't mind taking another minute, 
I'd be curious what was the nature of the problems you ran into... was it 
potential data loss, or just issues getting it to perform the upgrade? Thanks 
again.


-lewis

On 9/9/15 4:13 AM, Martin Hecht wrote:

Hi Lewis,

Yes, for lustre 2.x you have to "upgrade" the OS, which basically means
a reinstall of a CentOS 6.x (because there is no upgade path across
major releases), then install the lustre packages and the lustre-patched
kernel, and then the pain begins.
We had a lot of trouble when we upgraded our lustre file systems from
1.8 to 2.4. I would recommend to consider a fresh install of lustre 2 on
a separate hardware, then migrate the data (1.8 clients are able to
mount lustre 2 file systems, but not the other way round, and for
working quota support you need 1.8.9) to the new file system, and
finally reformat the old file system with lustre 2 and use it for
testing or backups or whatever.
However, if buying new hardware is not an option, the upgrade is
possible, and depending on the history of the file system it might work
quite smoothly. Upgrading a freshly formatted lustre 1.8 with some
artificial test data worked without any problems in our tests before
doing the upgrade of the production file systems.

Regards,
Martin


On 09/08/2015 08:18 PM, Lewis Hyatt wrote:

Thanks a lot for the response. Seems like we need to explore upgrading
the servers. Do you happen to know how smooth that process is likely
to be? We have lustre 1.8.8 on CentOS 5.4 there, I presume we need to
upgrade the OS and then follow the upgrade procedure in the lustre
manual, maybe it isn't such a big deal. Thanks again...

-Lewis

On 9/8/15 11:16 AM, Patrick Farrell wrote:

Lewis,

My own understanding is you are out of luck - the 1.8 client cannot
realistically be brought forward to newer kernels.  Far too many
changes over too long a period.

As far as version compatibility, I believe no newer clients will talk
to servers running 1.8.  If any will, they would be very early 2.x
versions, which won't support your desired kernel versions anyway.

Regards,
Patrick


From: lustre-discuss [lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] on
behalf of Lewis Hyatt [lhy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:06 AM
To: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
Subject: [lustre-discuss] 1.8 client on 3.13.0 kernel

Hello-

We have a working 1.8 lustre cluster with which we are very happy.
The object
and metadata servers are running one of the recommended CentOS
distributions
(5.4), but the clients are all Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, with kernel 2.6.32.
It is not
feasible for us to change on the client side to a different distro
other than
Ubuntu, but we are about to go to Ubuntu 14, with kernel 3.13.0, for
reasons
unrelated to lustre. Unfortunately it seems that lustre 1.8 cannot be
built on
this kernel, we can't even get through the configure process without
a large
number of errors. The first one we hit is this:

checking for
/lib/modules/3.13.0-63-generic/build/include/linux/autoconf.h... no

But various attempts to hack around the errors as they come up have
not led to
much success. Is this something we can hope to achieve? I thought I
saw some
threads about a series of patches to support this kernel in lustre
1.8 but I
haven't been able to find anything conclusive. We are really hoping
it is
possible to upgrade our clients without touching the lustre servers,
as we
don't want to disturb that production system which has been very
reliable for
us, and we don't have much in-house expertise with lustre or CentOS.
We were
able to build a newer lustre client on the 3.13 kernel, but it seems
it is not
willing to interact with the 1.8 servers.

Thanks for any advice, much appreciated.

-Lewis
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org


___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org





___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Re: [lustre-discuss] Are there plans to have a lustre kernel branch git?

[Dilger, Andreas]

Greg KH, the maintainer of the staging branch, doesn't want to handle git pull 
requests, but rather to have everything submitted to that branch via email.  
When the Lustre client is out of the staging branch we can create a branch at 
kernel.org for pull requests.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Software Architect
Intel High Performance Data Division

On 2015/09/08, 12:06 PM, "lustre-discuss on behalf of E.S. Rosenberg" 
mailto:lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org>
 on behalf of esr+lus...@mail.hebrew.edu> 
wrote:

Which would be easily merged with the mainline kernel git instead of the 
current setup of manually patching

Thanks,
Eli
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org