On 2012-06-14, at 8:48 PM, Nathan Rutman wrote: > I wasn't complaining, just asking ;)
I wasn't feeling put-upon, but just explaining (mostly to the other readers of these lists) the reasons why we don't necessarily make every release a maintenance release. > On Jun 14, 2012, at 6:27 PM, "Andreas Dilger" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the stability of 2.2.0 is comparable to 2.1.0. >> >> One issue is about the number of separate maintenance releases that can be >> tested. If there are many maintenance releases, then each of those branches >> would get correspondingly less testing time before release. >> >> Secondly, there is a limit on the amount of time that can be spent on >> porting patches to each maintenance release. >> >> This system of maintenance vs. feature releases is similar to what is done >> for Ubuntu "Long Term Stability" (LTS) regular releases, and Fedora vs. >> RHEL. While there is a desire to make each release as reliable as possible, >> the resources needed to maintain all of the releases for a long time would >> be very high. >> >> Cheers, Andreas >> >> On 2012-06-14, at 17:48, "Nathan Rutman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Is there a belief that Lustre 2.2 is any less stable than Lustre 2.1.0? >>> IOW, are the new features introduced in 2.2 believed to introduce more risk? >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> >>>> I guess the new Lustre release process is similar to how Ubuntu is >>>> released. While we do our best to make each release as stable as possible, >>>> there is a different expectation for long-term updates of the feature >>>> releases and the maintenance releases. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Andreas >>>> >>>> On 2012-06-09, at 16:05, Wojciech Turek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for a quick reply Andreas. I slightly misunderstood the lustre >>>>> release process and thought that the next stable/production version is >>>>> 2.2 >>>>> >>>>> I am then interested in the experience of people running Lustre 2.1 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Wojciech >>>>> >>>>> On 9 June 2012 21:52, Andreas Dilger <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I think you'll find that there are not yet (m)any production deployments >>>>>> of 2.2. There are a number of production 2.1 deployments, and this is >>>>>> the current maintenance stream from Whamcloud. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2012-06-09, at 14:33, Wojciech Turek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am building a 1.5PB storage system which will employ Lustre as the >>>>>>> main file system. The storage system will be extended at the later >>>>>>> stage beyond 2PB. I am considering using Lustre 2.2 for production >>>>>>> environment. This Lustre storage system will replace our older 300TB >>>>>>> system which is currently running Lustre 1.8.8. I am quite happy with >>>>>>> lustre 1.8.8 however for the new system Lustre 2.2 seem to be a better >>>>>>> match. The storage system will be attached to a university wide >>>>>>> cluster (800 nodes), hence there will be quite a large range of >>>>>>> applications using the filesystem. Could people with production >>>>>>> deployments of Lustre 2.2 share their experience please? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Wojciech Turek >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Lustre-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Whamcloud, Inc. Principal Lustre Engineer http://www.whamcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
