Hello Sebastien,
Thanks for your clear explanation.
I managed to "unsquash" my directory's ownership with a simple chown and
without having to re-mount the lustre filesystem.
I understand that I should activate the "admin" and "trusted" properties
on the default nodemap to turn it off
Hi,
It looks like you did not set properties on the default nodemap, which gets
involved for your machine not in the 10.0.1.[35-38] range.
When in use, the nodemap feature does not change anything about UID/GID of
files as stored on servers, it just changes (maps) the way clients see them.
On 5/20/22 09:53, Andreas Dilger via lustre-discuss wrote:
To elaborate a bit on Patrick's answer, there is no mechanism to do this on the
*client*, because the performance difference between client RAM and server
storage is still fairly significant, especially if the application is doing
Dear Lustre Experts,
since a few weeks we are keeping two Lustre system synchronous using
lustre_rsync. That works fine, but the statuslog file is growing. It is
currently about 500MB in size. Updating it is apparently slowing down
the whole process.
Is it only important to keep the
Hello everyone,
We are running lustre 2.12.7 and today I tried to set up a few nodemaps
so as to restrict access to an unique user (seamless user with uid/gid
3669) to a subdirectory (/webservices/seamless) from a range of machines
(10.0.1.[35-38]).
Here's what I did so far :
lctl
Ake,
in this particular case I can answer your question in detail.
Before SFAOS 12.1 (IIRC) the /sys/block/*/queue/rotational setting is set from
userspace at mount time via a udev script, and the Lustre detection of
"rotational=0" could be racy. Newer versions of SFAOS (12.1+) set the
On May 20, 2022, at 06:33, Robert Redl
mailto:robert.r...@lmu.de>> wrote:
Dear Lustre Experts,
since a few weeks we are keeping two Lustre system synchronous using
lustre_rsync. That works fine, but the statuslog file is growing. It is
currently about 500MB in size. Updating it is apparently
To elaborate a bit on Patrick's answer, there is no mechanism to do this on the
*client*, because the performance difference between client RAM and server
storage is still fairly significant, especially if the application is doing
sub-page read or write operations.
However, on the *server* the
