On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:36 -0700, Peter Jones wrote:
> Quite. And async journal commits were officially added in 1.8.2.
>
> Erik Froese wrote:
> > I remember something about a bug during recovery after a crash in 1.8.1.1.
> > Erik
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Peter Jones
> > wrote:
Quite. And async journal commits were officially added in 1.8.2.
Erik Froese wrote:
> I remember something about a bug during recovery after a crash in 1.8.1.1.
> Erik
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> Really? I had heard of a serious bug before async journal commits
I remember something about a bug during recovery after a crash in 1.8.1.1.
Erik
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> Really? I had heard of a serious bug before async journal commits were
> included in a release, but I had understood that things were working well at
> the few sit
Really? I had heard of a serious bug before async journal commits were
included in a release, but I had understood that things were working
well at the few sites running it.
Kevin Van Maren wrote:
> Yes, but depending on the Lustre version there are several bugs in the
> async journal code.
>
>
Thanks Kevin. This is 1.8.3.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Van Maren
wrote:
> Yes, but depending on the Lustre version there are several bugs in the async
> journal code.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Erik Froese wrote:
>>
>> Is it safe to enable async journals on the OSS's while the filesystem is
>>
On 2010-08-20, at 07:21, John Hammond wrote:
> Indeed, thanks. On Ranger, the compute nodes use compact flash drives for /,
> and so they depend on tmpfs's for /tmp, /var/run, /var/log, and of course
> /dev/shm. So cleaning up these ram backed filesystems as much as practical
> before asking f
Oleg,
Thanks for the clarification.
Jim Browne
At 11:10 PM 8/19/2010, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>Hello!
>
>On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > If you want to flush all the memory used by a Lustre client
> between jobs, you can do "lctl set_param
> ldlm.namespaces.*.lru_size=clear".
Yes, but depending on the Lustre version there are several bugs in the
async journal code.
Kevin
Erik Froese wrote:
> Is it safe to enable async journals on the OSS's while the filesystem is
> active?
> I'd like to see how it works for us.
>
> Thanks
> Erik
> __
Is it safe to enable async journals on the OSS's while the filesystem is active?
I'd like to see how it works for us.
Thanks
Erik
___
Lustre-discuss mailing list
Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
On 08/19/2010 11:10 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> If you want to flush all the memory used by a Lustre client
>> between jobs, you can do "lctl set_param
>> ldlm.namespaces.*.lru_size=clear". Unlike Kevin's suggestion it is
>> Lustre-speci
Hi Andreas,
On 08/19/2010 06:07 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-08-19, at 16:44, Kevin Van Maren wrote:
>> Easy way to reduce the client memory used by "Lustre" is to have
>> an Epilogue script run by SGE (or whatever scheduler/resource
>> manager) that does something like this on every node:
Last week there was an article on lwn.net about "Transparent hugepages"
discussed during "The fourth Linux storage and filesystem summit". According
to that article, we might be luckily and those patches might go into RHEL6
If you do not have an lwn.net account you might need to wait a few weeks
12 matches
Mail list logo
