You need to reconfigure/recompile ZFS in the new kernel. 7.4 added a macro for
bio_set_op_attrs and it's conflicting with a definition in blkdev_compat.h
because your source tree still thinks HAVE_BIO_SET_OP_ATTRS = 0
?
Well, I have been able to build for the 7.3 and updates kernels, but I
hav
On 1/8/18 12:26 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Riccardo. I understand not all versions are
> certified compatible but knowing that some folks have had success
> helps build some confidence. I tried building 2.8.0, the latest from
> the 2.8 branch, the latest from the 2.9 branc
Well, I have been able to build for the 7.3 and updates kernels, but I
have yet to succeed in building against any 3.10.693.* kernel. I can
update everything except the kernel and still build it.
I, for one, would love some feedback about what needs changed to build
with the latest kernel. I g
Thanks Malcom. Those LU's validate my concerns about replace_nids updating the
failover information properly – we'll schedule an outage and use the
tunefs.lustre method. Very helpful reference.
From: lustre-discuss on behalf of
"Cowe, Malcolm J"
Date: Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 7:23 PM
To:
Note though that since the servers live in kernel space they are also going to
be affected only minimally. The Lustre server code itself will see zero
effect, since it’s entirely kernel code. Other things running on those servers
may see impact, and if there’s enough user space stuff, increase
The hit is mainly for things that do context switches (which IO is the
biggest thing in.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Arman Khalatyan wrote:
> Ok, We did some tests with the new lustre clients(no patch on servers)
> I can confirm like Marek: maximum downgrade is about 40% by rsync with
> smal
Ok, We did some tests with the new lustre clients(no patch on servers)
I can confirm like Marek: maximum downgrade is about 40% by rsync with
small files, lfs find on large folders 45% performance penalty:(
We found terrible performance on the test system with zfs+compression+lustre.
Good news: the
Hi all,
> I wonder if any performance impacts on lustre with the new security
> patches for the Intel?
According to our initial tests on 3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.x86_64 kernel
(Centos 7.4) with Lustre 2.10.2, there is a penalty of ca. 10% in nice
workloads (1MB IO) up to 40% in 4k IOs. Tested with IOR
Thanks for the feedback, Riccardo. I understand not all versions are certified
compatible but knowing that some folks have had success helps build some
confidence. I tried building 2.8.0, the latest from the 2.8 branch, the latest
from the 2.9 branch, 2.10.2, and the latest from master
(2.10.
