Hello,
I am running lustre 2.1.56 on the server side, and 1.8.4 (cray) on the client
side.
I am having the classical secondary group problem, but when I enable it on the
mds vi lctl conf_param
lustre-MDT.mdt.identity_upcall=/usr/sbin/l_getidentity, I still have the
same permissions proble
Hello,
I experimented with swap on lustre in as many ways as possible (without
touching the code), and had the shortest path possible to no avail. The code
is not able to handle it at all, and the system always hung.
Without serious code rewrites, this isn't going to work for you.
-Jason
---
I believe that software raid has a historical bias. I use software raid
exclusively for my lustre installations here, and have never seen any problem
with it. The argument used to be that having dedicated hardware running your
raids removed any overhead from the OS having to control them, and
I've found that even with the Protocal Error, it still works.
-Jason
-Original Message-
From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org
[mailto:lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Michael Shuey
Sent: martedì, 25. gennaio 2011 14:45
To: Michael Kluge
Cc: Lustre Diskussions
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: Mich
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
Subjec
Hi,
You need to run tunefs.lustre on all the servers to add the new nid @tcp nids.
Thanks,
Jason
From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org
[mailto:lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of vaibhav pol
Sent: venerdì, 10. dicembre 2010 09:36
To: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
Su
I believe that was the *goal* of 2.0, but unfortunately, that lofty goal was
not met, the timeline of which seemed to stretch from when Sun purchased Lustre
until some time in the far future.
See here for the features available in 2.0:
http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Lustre_2.0_Features
-Jaso
We use ganglia with collectl. These versions are the only ones I could find to
work in this way:
Sep 30 13:35 [r...@wn125:~]# rpm -qa |grep collectl
collectl-3.4.2-5
Sep 30 13:35 [r...@wn125:~]# rpm -qa |grep ganglia
ganglia-gmond-3.1.7-1
We are quite happy with it.
Thanks,
Jason
-Origin
It appears that turning off statahead does indeed avoid the soft lockup bug.
But this seems to me to be a workaround, and not a solution.
Is statahead not useful for performance gains? I am not comfortable making my
user's jobs waste more cpu time because I have to implement a workaround
inst
Hello,
I have recently upgraded my lustre filesystem from 1.8.3 to 1.8.4. The first
day we brought our system online with the new version, we started seeing
clients getting stuck in this soft lockup loop. The load shoots up over 120,
and eventually the node becomes unusable and requires a har
11 matches
Mail list logo
