hi! I tried to build lustre-1.6.4.2 in my system, but the following error occured,
/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2/lustre/lvfs/lvfs_linux.c:345: error: too few arguments to function vfs_rename make[6]: *** [/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2/lustre/lvfs/lvfs_linux.o] Error 1 make[5]: *** [/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2/lustre/lvfs] Error 2 make[4]: *** [/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2/lustre] Error 2 make[3]: *** [_module_/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.22-14-generic' make[2]: *** [modules] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/bharat/Desktop/lustre-1.6/lustre-1.6.4.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 my kernel version is 2.6.22.14. and I configured patchless client in my system using the following command [lustre]$ ./configure --with-linux=/unpatched/kernel/source and after that I tried to build, using make then the above error occured. can anyone help me in how to proceed building the patchless client for lustre. Thanks and Regards, Ashok Bharat -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 2/12/2008 10:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 22 Send Lustre-discuss mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Lustre-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Am I missing something? (Aaron Knister) 2. Re: rc -43: Identifier removed (Kit Westneat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:11:19 -0500 From: Aaron Knister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Am I missing something? To: Timh Bergstr?m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The discrepancies between lfs df -h and df -h I think that largely have to do with the way GB are calculated. Ether based on 1000 or 1024. Remember you lose about 5% of each underlying volume due to the 5% reserved for root. Aaron On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Timh Bergstr?m wrote: > Hi, > > Just got a smaller Lustre system running with 1 mdt/mgs and 2 ost's. > On the osts i've added 1x10GB disk and 1x20GB disk > on each system and formatted and mounted them as /mnt/ost1-4 (ost1) > and /mnt/ost2-3 (ost2). I've also mounted the lustre system on the > mdt/mgs server with mount -t lustre [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/testfs /mnt/lustre. > So far so good, however df -h only reports 9/60GB avail where lsf df > -h reports 54.4G available. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/testfs > 60G 50G 9.0G 85% /mnt/lustre > > vs > > filesystem summary: 59.1G 4.7G 54.4G 7% /mnt/lustre > > -- > > lustre-client:/mnt/lustre# du -hcs > 4.0K . > 4.0K total > > I cant find anything on this in the lists or manual, but do you > have to have equal size disks to get all the usable space available > to the system mounting lustre? Is this somehow connected to stripe- > size or some automatic failover settings. My original intent was to > create a large storage area using lustre for numerous clients to > mount and use as diskspace. > > -- > Timh Bergstr?m > System Administrator > Diino AB - www.diino.com > :wq _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss Aaron Knister Associate Systems Analyst Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (301) 595-7000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20080212/f41b7db3/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:27:27 -0500 From: Kit Westneat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] rc -43: Identifier removed To: Per Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steden Klaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed What the group upcall does is get all the secondary groups for the client user. There isn't enough room in the LNET message to send them all, so the MDS has to look it up in the /etc/groups. If you don't care about secondary groups at all, there is no harm in clearing the group_upcall param. In theory, there also shouldn't be any harm in having different passwd and group files on the MDS and OSSes than on the clients. It's highly important, however, that all the clients have the same passwd and groups files. Otherwise the clients could interpret the same UID as different users, and people could go mucking around in each others files. - Kit Per Lundqvist wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Aaron Knister wrote: > > >> I had the same issue with my lustre setup. I think this should fix it -- >> >> tunefs.lustre --param mdt.group_upcall=NONE /dev/mdt/device >> > > Thanks Andreas and Aaron, but then I wonder why the MDS needs to have all > the users in its own passwd/group file? And what are the implications of > setting the above mdt.group_upcall=NONE on the MDT? > > /Per > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss End of Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 25, Issue 22 **********************************************
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
