Hi all.
We have a 230 TB small lustre system. We are using lustre 2.4.1 with zfs
0.6.2 installed in the OSSs. The lustre architecture is the following:
1 MDS +1 MDT in the same server + 3 OSS with 15 ldiskfs OSTs (external
disks some with fibre controllers and SAS disks and others Coraid aoe
On Feb 23, 2016, at 05:24, Fernando Perez wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> We have a 230 TB small lustre system. We are using lustre 2.4.1 with zfs
> 0.6.2 installed in the OSSs. The lustre architecture is the following:
>
> 1 MDS +1 MDT in the same server + 3 OSS with 15 ldiskfs OSTs (external disks
Thanks Andreas.
I will follow your recommendations.
Regards.
=
Fernando Pérez
Institut de Ciències del Mar (CMIMA-CSIC)
Departament Oceanografía Física i Tecnològica
Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta,37-49
08003 Barcelona
Phone: (+34) 93 230 96 35
Please see inlined.
On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Dilger, Andreas
mailto:andreas.dil...@intel.com>> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2016, at 05:24, Fernando Perez
mailto:fpe...@icm.csic.es>> wrote:
Hi all.
... snip...
- Dou you recommend to do a lustre update before replace the OSTs by the new
zfs OSTs?
L
On 03/01/2016 09:18 AM, Alexander I Kulyavtsev wrote:
> is tag 2.5.3.90 considered stable?
No. Generally speaking you do not want to use anything with number 50
or greater for the fourth number unless you are helping out with testing
during the development process.
2.5.3 was the last official r
On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
> On 03/01/2016 09:18 AM, Alexander I Kulyavtsev wrote:
>
>> is tag 2.5.3.90 considered stable?
>
> No. Generally speaking you do not want to use anything with number 50
> or greater for the fourth number unless you are helping out with
On Mar 2, 2016, at 01:18, Alexander I Kulyavtsev
mailto:a...@fnal.gov>> wrote:
Please see inlined.
On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Dilger, Andreas
mailto:andreas.dil...@intel.com>> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2016, at 05:24, Fernando Perez
mailto:fpe...@icm.csic.es>> wrote:
Hi all.
... snip...
- Dou you
On 03/01/2016 01:44 PM, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2016 09:18 AM, Alexander I Kulyavtsev wrote:
>>
>>> is tag 2.5.3.90 considered stable?
>>
>> No. Generally speaking you do not want to use anything with number 50
>> or greater
Is there way to run 2.5.3-llnl server with 1.8.9 client?
Or, do you have a hint what can be a problem causing LBUG when mounting two
lustres (old 1.8.8 and new 2.5.3) from 1.8.9 client? No ldiskfs on new system,
ZFS only.
I'm copying my previous posting at the end of the mail for specific error.
