Hi All;
Is there any update on the status of ZFS being integrated in to lustre?
Best regards
Mertol
Mertol Ozyoney
Storage Practice - Sales Manager
Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +90212335
Email mertol.ozyo...@sun.com
-Original
On May 11, 2009 09:15 +0300, Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
Is there any update on the status of ZFS being integrated in to lustre?
Work is underway, but we don't have a hard release date yet. As soon
as it is ready.
-Original Message-
From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org
Hi,
I had a quick skim through the v1.8 Lustre manual and in section 4.4 there is a
mention of the --cachefor and --proxyfor options to mkfs.lustre. I didn't think
Lustre had such functionality yet? Are these planned for a 1.8x release? How do
they work exactly? In the recent discussion of
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:53:40PM -0500, Weikuan Yu wrote:
Yes, it passed compilation. But there are many errors reported from runtest,
quite a number of them are only from ad_lustre driver. Attached is an output
tarball (named as .txt though). It contains the output files from running
Hello!
On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:42:40PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The core looks like this:
#1 0x2b7d5ff825a2 in DumpModeDecode (tif=0x58cdd0,
buf=0xf7f7f7f5f5f5f6f6
Address 0xf7f7f7f5f5f5f6f6 out of bounds, cc=76800, s=2016)
Hi, RobL,
I tried the compilation. Looks like the SVN code has some inconsistencies in
variable names.
ad_lustre_hints.c: In function `ADIOI_LUSTRE_SetInfo':
ad_lustre_hints.c:34: error: structure has no member named `co_ratio'
ad_lustre_hints.c:36: error: structure has no member named
Weikuan,
I can't read the attachment you sent. It has all kinds of strange
characters.
Rajeev
-Original Message-
From: Weikuan Yu [mailto:w...@auburn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 3:54 PM
To: Rob Latham
Cc: emoly.liu; Wei-keng Liao; romio-ma...@mcs.anl.gov;
Hi, Rajeev,
Yeah, that file was a tarball named as .txt. It needs to be untar'ed to get
two output files. coll_test.c, noncontig_coll.c, noncontig_coll2.c and
others are failing.
# tar zxf runtests.output.txt
--
Weikuan Yu, +1 (334) 844-6330
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~wkyu/
From: Rajeev
From: Rob Latham r...@mcs.anl.gov
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:28:12 -0500
To: Weikuan Yu w...@auburn.edu
Cc: emoly.liu emoly@sun.com, Wei-keng Liao
wkl...@ece.northwestern.edu, romio-ma...@mcs.anl.gov, Tom.Wang
tom.w...@sun.com, David Knaak kn...@cray.com, lustre-discuss
While performing a single copy, single client write/read test using dd, we are
finding that our Nehalem clients running
2.6.18-92.1.10.el5-lustre-1.6.5.1
write about half the speed of our Nehalem clients running
2.6.18-53.1.13.el5_lustre.1.6.4.3 to three different lustre file systems.
This is
I got a couple more of these errors over the weekend. One of the file in
which the error occurred was a log(ascii) file while the other was a
dynamically linked MPI binary which was getting accessed from multiple
nodes.
The PBS job that was running was a hybrid MPI/OpenMP program using 20
On May 11, 2009 13:35 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
While performing a single copy, single client write/read test using dd,
we find that our Nehalem clients running 2.6.18-92.1.10.el5-lustre-1.6.5.1
write about half the speed of our Nehalem clients running
2.6.18-53.1.13.el5_lustre.1.6.4.3 to
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:19 +0530, anil kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have following issues with 1.6.5.1 1.6.7.1, please let us know if
there are any work around or fix for this.
I notice time out on OST regularly on different OST/OSS
May 10 08:17:57 dadbdd01 kernel: LustreError:
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:35 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
While performing a single copy, single client write/read test using
dd, we are finding that our Nehalem clients running
2.6.18-92.1.10.el5-lustre-1.6.5.1
write about half the speed of our Nehalem clients running
Dave
Does the substantial block-level device throughput regression exist in
2.6.18-128?
/bob
-Original Message-
From: David Dillow [mailto:dillo...@ornl.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Hayes, Robert N
Cc: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] (no
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:44 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
Dave
Does the substantial block-level device throughput regression exist
in 2.6.18-128?
I couldn't say, haven't tested it. Our environment is SRP over IB for
the storage, so that'll be my focus when I look at the changes between
the two
On May 11, 2009 15:44 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
Does the substantial block-level device throughput regression exist
in 2.6.18-128?
Note that block-level device is meaningless from the point of view
of Lustre clients. If you changed the client software only then this
shouldn't be a factor.
On May 11, 2009 14:38 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
We will test the mem=12G suggestion. Before attempting the 1.8.0 client,
can you confirm that a 1.8 client should work with a 1.6 server without
causing any more complications?
Yes, the 1.8.x clients are interoperable with 1.6.x servers. If
On May 11, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On May 11, 2009 14:38 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
We will test the mem=12G suggestion. Before attempting the 1.8.0
client,
can you confirm that a 1.8 client should work with a 1.6 server
without
causing any more complications?
19 matches
Mail list logo
