In message <1248420309.21455.12.ca...@berloga.shadowland>,Alexey Lyashkov write
s:
>On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:53 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:39AM -0500, Mitch Felton wrote:
>> > Does anyone know if Lustre 1.8 supports ipv6?
>>
>> I believe it does not.
>>
>this
In message <20090724153810.gf1...@sun.com>,Nicolas Williams writes:
>We should have a plan for IPv6 though.
you should HAVE ipv6 support. this would give you a leg up on other
clustered filesystems. some organizations require ipv6 support for
future products. you would now have another reason l
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:23:59 -0400
Jason Hill wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:36:43AM -0400, Jason Hill wrote:
> storage as well. I would definately suggest putting your LNET and SRP
> connections on different physical HCA's to keep the traffic at least isolated
> on the OSS side.
i doubt
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:00:04 -0400
David Dillow wrote:
> While it is true both are full duplex, there are also setup messages
> flowing in both directions to set up the large transfers. In the past,
> we've certainly seen problems at scale with small messages getting
> blocked behind large bulk t
we have seen a few crashes that look like:
[250696.381575] RIP: 0010:[] []
mdc_exit_request+0x74/0xb0 [mdc]
...
[250696.381575] Call Trace:
[250696.381575] []
mdc_intent_getattr_async_interpret+0x82/0x500 [mdc]
[250696.381575] [] ptlrpc_check_set+0x200/0x1690 [ptlrpc]
[250696.381575] [] ptlr
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:03:25 -0400
chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> later mdc_exit_request() finds this mcw by iterating the list.
> seeing as mcw was allocated on the stack, i dont think you can do this.
> mcw might have been reused by the time mdc_exit_request() gets around
> to
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:29:43 -0600
Kevin Van Maren wrote:
> > chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> > nevermind. i see this has been fixed in later releases apparently (i
> > was looking at 1.8.5). if l_wait_event() returns "early" (like
> > from being interru
i have some patches to get the 1.8.6-wc1 client running on FC14. i was
working on FC15 (which would be 2.6.38) but got distracted. the
changes needed to get to 2.6.38 are a bit tedious. the kernel warning
flags changed and some of the configure tests need to be re-written a
bit so they don't -We
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:00:17 -0400
Ken Hornstein wrote:
> >I am not finding where it says explicitly that a lustre client running
> >1.8 will successfully be able to read and write to a set of lustre
> >servers running lustre 2.1. are there any known issues?
>
> I forget where that was written d
