What about lustre client in upstream kernel? I guess lustre-common and lustre-client shall be packaged in a way that these rpms can be drop-in replacement for lustre client functionality in upstream kernel like today we have lustre with in-kernel IB or custom IB.
Also there was discussion to split off lnet rpm. “only a handful of modules would be different between the client and server” Do these extra server modules bring extra dependencies like zfs or else? Alex. On 8/10/18, 5:36 PM, "Andreas Dilger" <[email protected]> wrote: On Aug 9, 2018, at 18:51, Faaland, Olaf P. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > What is the reason for naming the package "lustre" if it includes both client and server binaries, but "lustre-client" if it includes only the client? > > ===== (from > # Set the package name prefix > %if %{undefined lustre_name} > %if %{with servers} > %global lustre_name lustre > %else > %global lustre_name lustre-client > %endif > %endif > ===== > > Are there sites that build both with and without servers, and need to keep track which is installed on a given machine? The size of the RPMs isn't that different, so it's not obvious to me why one would do that. The original reason for separate "lustre" and "lustre-client" packages was that the "lustre-client" package was built against a patchless kernel, so that it could be installed on unmodified client systems. At the time, this was a departure from the all-inclusive "lustre" package that was always built against a patched kernel. Until not so long ago, it wasn't possible to build a server against an upatched kernel, but that has been working for a while now. We do build "patched" and "unpatched" server RPMs today, but haven't gotten around to changing the packaging to match. At this point, I think it makes sense to just move over to RPMs for patched and unpatched kernels, and get rid of the "-client" package. Alternately, we could have "lustre-client", "lustre-server", and "lustre-common" RPMs, but (IMHO) that just adds more confusion for the users, and doesn't really reduce the package size significantly (only a handful of modules would be different between the client and server). Having a patched server kernel isn't needed for ZFS, and while it works for ldiskfs as well, there are still a few kernel patches that improve ldiskfs server performance/functionality that are not in RHEL7 (e.g. project quota, the upcoming T10-PI interface changes) that make it desirable to keep both options until those changes are in vendor kernels. Cheers, Andreas --- Andreas Dilger Principal Lustre Architect Whamcloud _______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
