I wasn't complaining, just asking ;)
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 _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
