Peter Bojanic wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > (Copying Lustre-devel) > > On 2007-12-13, at 15:57 , Nathan Rutman wrote: > > >> Peter - I filed bug 14471 and Tom is running with it, but it's kind >> of a big UI change and so I think someone In Authority should give >> the go-ahead. I think andreas and I are in agreement that it makes >> sense. The first step should be to do a nice DLD detailing >> potential impact on all our tools, testing, debug etc. >> > > Are you absolutely certain about this? This is going to break a ton of > people's scripts. > > well, that's why I asked. As I said, Andreas and I are in agreement, and it certainly makes sense from a portability point of view, as well as consistency with future features (snapshots, audit logs, etc.), and the final elimination of our various /proc locking headaches. But yes, it would break user's scripts - that's a 1-time thing, and I think not too terrible.
> This needs a few more nods from the architecture group -- I'd like to > see at least eeb chime in. > > By means of discussing it here, we're pretty much announcing the > change to the Lustre community. But, if we proceed, you should also > post a note to lustre-discuss for wider dissemination. > > Thanks, > Bojanic > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-devel mailing list > Lustre-devel@clusterfs.com > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel > _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list Lustre-devel@clusterfs.com https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel