Thanks Andreas, So I guess that means I can give it a try and hope for the best :-) or would I be wiser to go step by step given this is a production system serving 32 TB? Ron.
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andreas Dilger Sent: Thu 10/18/2007 5:56 PM To: Jerome, Ron Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] lustre interoperability On Oct 18, 2007 10:49 -0400, Jerome, Ron wrote: > Could somebody (Andreas maybe :) give a definitive answer on this... > > > > Having said that, I believe 1.6.0 and 1.6.3 is actually something > that > > > will work, but I'm not 100% certain of this, so I'll allow others to > > > correct me. > > ... as I would like to do just this, go from 1.6.0.1 to 1.6.3 and would > rather not have to go through the intermediate versions if I don't have > to. I'm not aware of any incompatibilities between 1.6.0 and 1.6.3, and we have a good mechanism to handle protocol negotiation when we add features to Lustre (since 1.4.2). That said, we can't possibly do an all-to-all test matrix, so we only test against the previous minor version (1.6.3 against 1.6.2) and the upgrade from the most recent major version (1.4.12). There have been no changes to the on-disk format since 1.4 days (excluding the config logs) that I'm aware of. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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
