Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? -- Mike Shuey On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger adil...@whamcloud.com wrote: While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it's release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio sapari...@bccrc.ca wrote: thanks for this note. is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: Hi, I've built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. -cf On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca http://molonc.bccrc.ca/ ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
And what impact do you forsee from this article? -Original Message- From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Dilger Sent: martedì, 11. gennaio 2011 21:55 To: Michael Shuey Cc: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels The interoperability for 2.x releases has been the following for a long time: - 1.8 clients will work with 1.8 and 2.x servers (through some version of x to be determined), though they may not be able to take advantage of newer features being added to 2.x. In some cases, the 2.x features need to be turned off until all of the clients have been upgraded to 2.x. - 2.x clients will not be able to interoperate with 1.8 servers. That means that it is necessary to upgrade the servers to 2.x before the clients, or at the same time. Also, the upgrade process of the servers from 1.8 to 2.x is disruptive to the client - the client is evicted and automatically reconnects to the 2.x server using the new wire protocol. Any client doing RPCs at the time of the upgrade will get an IO error, so running jobs on the clients need to be at least paused. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 13:24, Michael Shuey sh...@purdue.edu wrote: What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? -- Mike Shuey On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger adil...@whamcloud.com wrote: While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it's release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio sapari...@bccrc.ca wrote: thanks for this note. is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: Hi, I've built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. -cf On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca http://molonc.bccrc.ca/ ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
I mean this article. Forgot to attach it: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/InsideHPC/~3/LI9iHNGoFZw/ -Original Message- From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Dilger Sent: martedì, 11. gennaio 2011 21:55 To: Michael Shuey Cc: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels The interoperability for 2.x releases has been the following for a long time: - 1.8 clients will work with 1.8 and 2.x servers (through some version of x to be determined), though they may not be able to take advantage of newer features being added to 2.x. In some cases, the 2.x features need to be turned off until all of the clients have been upgraded to 2.x. - 2.x clients will not be able to interoperate with 1.8 servers. That means that it is necessary to upgrade the servers to 2.x before the clients, or at the same time. Also, the upgrade process of the servers from 1.8 to 2.x is disruptive to the client - the client is evicted and automatically reconnects to the 2.x server using the new wire protocol. Any client doing RPCs at the time of the upgrade will get an IO error, so running jobs on the clients need to be at least paused. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 13:24, Michael Shuey sh...@purdue.edu wrote: What does that imply for sites migrating from 1.8 to 2.1? Presumably some sites will have both 1.8 and 2.1 filesystems; will those sites need to run 2.0 on the clients to mount both FS versions concurrently? -- Mike Shuey On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Andreas Dilger adil...@whamcloud.com wrote: While 2.0 was submitted to quite heavy testing at Oracle before it's release, it has not been widely deployed for production at this point. All of the develoment and maintenance effort has gone into the next release (2.1) which is not released yet. I think that 2.1 will represent a much more sustainable target for production usage, when it is released. Until that happens, I would only recommend 2.0 for evaluation usage, and especially for sites new to Lustre that they stay on the tried-and-true 1.8 code base. Cheers, Andreas On 2011-01-11, at 12:56, Samuel Aparicio sapari...@bccrc.ca wrote: thanks for this note. is lustre 2.0 regarded as stable for production? Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Colin Faber wrote: Hi, I've built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. -cf On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca http://molonc.bccrc.ca/ ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
Re: [Lustre-discuss] status of lustre 2.0 on 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels
Hi, I've built several against 2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 kernels without problem so I would think you can probably get away with 0.1 as well. -cf On 01/07/2011 06:05 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote: Is it known if Lustre 2.0 GA will run with 2.6.18-194.17.1.0.1.el5 kernels. The test matrix has only the 164 kernel as the latest tested. Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency 675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada. office: +1 604 675 8200 cellphone: +1 604 762 5178: lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca http://molonc.bccrc.ca/ ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss ___ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
