Greetings Johann, Thank you for your response.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Johann Lombardi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:31:53PM -0400, Ms. Megan Larko wrote: >> I attempted to add a new lustre tuning parameter to my system (I >> wanted to add the *t.group_upcall=NONE.) While the Lustre 1.8.4 read > > Please note that *t.group_upcall=NONE is already supported in 1.6. Yes. I know that *t.group_upcall=NONE is supported in 1.6. Our site at SGI did not have its 1.6.7.2 Lustre configured that way. The SGI site was using the default and I wanted to change it after upgrading to 1.8.4. I apologize if I was not clear. > >> the 1.6.7.2 tuning parameters without issue and I could add to the >> parameters under 1.8.4 without issue, if I tried to change a parameter >> requiring that I use the --writeconf option, I learned I had to change >> all the parameters from the 1.6.7.2 syntax to the 1.8.4 syntax. >> (EXAMPLE: "failover.node" string became "failnode") Okay. This I >> can do, BUT... >> >> If I have to revert to 1.6.7.2 (due to a security flaw in the linux >> kernel or something...) am I correct in assuming that the lustre 1.8.4 >> parameter strings would not be understood by the 1.6.7.2 lustre system >> (can't have s/w reading into the future, right? Smile)? If that is > > To be clear, lustre 1.8 and 1.6 use the same string format. 1.8 just supports > some additional parameters introduced for to the new features (e.g. OST > pools). > Unknown params are supposed to be ignored when downgrading. While it works > fine with most of the new params (like OST pools), there is unfortunately a > bug (i.e. it does not work with at_max), see bug 20449. Okay....I was getting errors when I attempted to use --erase-params and --writeconf in 1.8.4 stating that my 1.6.7.2 parameters would have to be updated (again, my "failover.node" string becomes "failnode" string). Just my personal experience so far... Thank you, MLarko > > Cheers, > Johann > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
