Re: [lustre-discuss] Do old clients ever go away?

[Moreno Diego (ID SIS)]

I don't see a way to clear the exports on the MGS side so it seems you get 
there every single NID that ever connected to the system. You can however clear 
this on the MDSes/OSSes:

[root@mds01 ~]# ls /proc/fs/lustre/mdt/fs1-MDT0001/exports/ | wc -l
5182
[root@mds01 ~]# echo 1 > /proc/fs/lustre/mdt/fs1-MDT0001/exports/clear
[root@mds01 ~]# ls /proc/fs/lustre/mdt/fs1-MDT0001/exports/ | wc -l
349

Regards,

Diego
 

On 05.06.20, 16:39, "lustre-discuss on behalf of William D. Colburn" 
 wrote:

I was looking in /proc/fs/lustre/mgs/MGS/exports/, and I see ip
addresses in there that don't go anywhere anymore.  I'm pretty sure they
are gone so long that they predate the uptime of the mds.  Does a lost
client linger forever, or am I just wrong about when the machines went
offline in relation to the uptime of the MDS?

--Schlake
___
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] Do old clients ever go away?

[K. Scott Rowe]

I expect a reboot of the EVLA Lustre system will remove unused
IPs from that directory.  Many of those "gone" IPs are for
retired CBE nodes (cbe-node-{17..33}) and one (192.168.200.14)
is for I don't know what.

using "lshowmount -l" might be more useful than looking in that
directory.

On Jun 05 08:37, William D. Colburn wrote:
}I was looking in /proc/fs/lustre/mgs/MGS/exports/, and I see ip
}addresses in there that don't go anywhere anymore.  I'm pretty sure they
}are gone so long that they predate the uptime of the mds.  Does a lost
}client linger forever, or am I just wrong about when the machines went
}offline in relation to the uptime of the MDS?
}
}--Schlake
}___
}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] Do old clients ever go away?

[William D. Colburn]

I was looking in /proc/fs/lustre/mgs/MGS/exports/, and I see ip
addresses in there that don't go anywhere anymore.  I'm pretty sure they
are gone so long that they predate the uptime of the mds.  Does a lost
client linger forever, or am I just wrong about when the machines went
offline in relation to the uptime of the MDS?

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

Re: [lustre-discuss] patchless server vs. patched server

[Andreas Dilger]

Pascal,
Thanks for taking the time to update the wiki, every contribution helps.

Note that the need for patches kernels for project quotas will also go
away with newer kernels, but Red Hat just couldn't make that feature work
with the RHEL7 kernel without breaking the ABI.

Cheers, Andreas

On Jun 2, 2020, at 06:51, Pascal Suter  wrote:



Hi George

that used to be the case until before 2.10.1, but since 2.10.1 even ldiskfs 
does not require a patch anymore. I have actually updated from a patched 2.10.3 
to 2.12.4 patchless and i am using ldiskfs for my MDTs  and ZFS for the OSTs

but i think i just found out why there are still both versions being packed.. 
while i was looking for a link to quote regarding ldiskfs now working without a 
patch, i actually found the announcement of 2.10.1  at 
http://lustre.org/lustre-2-10-1-released/ which states

   "Patchless server build for ldiskfs is now routinely provided. Note that the 
patched kernel version must still be used to make use of project quotas"

And here is the document that my question was based upon:

http://wiki.lustre.org/Installing_the_Lustre_Software

it states:

"Note: With the release of Lustre version 2.10.1, it is possible to use 
patchless kernels for Lustre servers running LDISKFS. The patchless LDISKFS 
server distribution does not include a Linux kernel. Instead, patchless servers 
will use the kernel distributed with the operating system."

and here is a LUDOC issue regarding documenting this in the official lustre 
documentation:

https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-435

(amazing what you can find once you know what to look for ;))

i have applied for a lustre.org wiki account to add this missing piece of 
information which should help people to choose better if they want to use the 
patched or patchless kernel. luckily i'm not using the project quota feature ;)

cheers

Pascal



On 6/2/20 1:50 PM, George Melikov wrote:
IIRC "patchless server" can only serve ZFS based backends.
So, it you really need ldiskfs - you're stuck with patched kernel for now.

27.05.2020, 18:41, "Pascal Suter" 
:

Hi all

i am currently upgrading a lustre 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 on CentOS 7.7 and I
am unsure if I should use the patchless or patched server version. what
is the advantage of still using the patched server version over using
the patchless variant? From an linux sysadmin point of view I prefer to
use an unpatched kernel and it would seem unnecessary to still maintain
a patched variant if they both worked the same in the end.

regards

Pascal

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




Sincerely,
George Melikov

___
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