Bernd,
I have downloaded the file you suggested for 2.6.20+ and I am at a
stand still with the following issues:
1. After patching the 2.6.20 vanilla kernel and configuring lustre: ./
configure --disable-liblustre --disable-tests and then running I make
I recieve:
make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.20'
CC [M] /root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.o
/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c:168:
error: static declaration of âtop_tableâ follows non-static
declaration
/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c:65:
error: previous declaration of âtop_tableâ was here
make[6]: *** [/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet/libcfs/linux/linux-
proc.o] Error 1
make[5]: *** [/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet/libcfs] Error 2
make[4]: *** [/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6/lnet] Error 2
make[3]: *** [_module_/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.20'
make[2]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/lustre-1.6.0.1-rc1-ql6'
make: *** [all] Error 2make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/
linux-2.6.20'
I tried patching against 2.6.22 but I received some errors in the
quilt push -av process which I will post later. Additionally the
configure process complains about not having a definition for 2.6.22
in "lustre/autoconf/lustre-core.m4"
Am I doing something wrong?
-Joel Robison
On Jul 6, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Harald van Pee wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007 10:55 am, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2007 23:42:38 Harald van Pee wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2007 11:23 pm, Bernd Schubert wrote:
Joel Robison wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply Bernd,
I have not put any valuable data on the filesystem yet, so no
worries
about data loss, just 1.2T of zeros.
How can I disable extents and mballoc? is it a ../configure
option?
I am away from the machines right now or I would check myself.
On the OSSs
1.) umount {ost-mountpoint}
2.) tunefs.lustre --mountfsoptions="" /dev/{ost-device}
3.) mount {ost-mountpoint}
would there a big performance loss and if so does the CFS team
suggests a
patch instead?
Some numbers you might find here:
http://www.pci.uni-heidelberg.de/tc/usr/bernd/downloads/lustre/
performance/
thanks for your reply the performance loss is not small, but
can I be sure that than do not run into bmalloc related file system
crashes?
Just to be sure because in the last discussions there are a lot of
informations and I'm not sure what I have to do next.
Patches are in bug#11039
Cheers,
Bernd
I have looked into this but there for me its not easy to find out
which patch
should I realy use for vanilla 2.6.18,
some are outdated and I want to avoid to do something wrong.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
