Hi Sam,
I think in general a lot more effort is made to get the kernel module working properly than the client tools (pvfs2-*).
Is this really true? All the pvfs2-* tools use the same set of SMs as client-core, no? (unless of course there is a bug in the pvfs2-*.c file?).
That being said, we don't discourage the use of the client tools, they just don't get as much pounding, and they aren't written to match the functionality that the VFS provides.
Hmm.. if this is indeed the case, then we could get the posix like library API that Brad developed into shape and use LD_PRELOAD to run the nightlies? thanks, Murali
> > 1) Is this a known issue that is fixed in PVFS 2.6? The issue I think is why pvfs2-rm causes the server(s) to crash. If possible, could you send us the logs of the servers? They should be in /tmp/pvfs2-server.log. > 2) Is it fine to continue to use v1.5.1 so long as I don't use the > PVFS-* commands? Yes. There are known bugs in the 1.5.1 release, but they aren't likely to cause any problems for what you're doing. > 3) Is upgrading to v2.6 on a rocks cluster 'straight forward', or is > it likely to involve some 'debugging' and a few days work - bear in > mind my relative inexperience with Linux. I've never installed Rocks so I'm going to have to let someone else answer that. We pride ourselves on making PVFS easy to install and deploy, and that hasn't changed in the newer releases. -sam > > Regards > Mark > _______________________________________________ > Pvfs2-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users > _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
_______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
