Hi all,
about the correct procedure to replace an OST:
I read the recent issues reported here by Robert Redl, the LU-15000 by Stephane
and in particular his talk at LAD22:
Why is it important to _not_ reuse old OST indices?
Understandable if you want to remove the OST, but not replace it.
In the past - I think in Lustre 1.8 - when there was no "mkfs.lustre --replace" available, over time we ended up with a long list of OSTs continually
'lctl --deactivate'd on all clients, very ugly.
And were so happy when explicit indices and '--replace' were introduced, in particular because I was terribly afraid of creating holes in the list of
active OSTs ('holes' might have been a No-No in some past version?)
Nowadays, everybody wants to avoid old OST incides - with 'lctl --del-ost' a
specific command for doing that comfortably is developed.
Why?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Roth IT-HPC-Linux
Location: SB3 2.291 Phone: 1453
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
