Re: [lustre-discuss] zfs
are you sure this is a legitimate letter and not just some scammer? One would expect that such a letter would cause an immediate shitstorm, and so far googling for "zfs oracle patent" only reveals some old news regarding the netapp vs oracle fight which ended in september this year [1]. [1] https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/630393 cheers Pascal ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
Re: [lustre-discuss] bios spray passwd change
you should really ask this question to your hardware vendor. usually the mainboard manufacturer has tools for that. another option might be Redfish, if your nodes support that already (try a get request to https:///redfish/v1/ and see if you get some json back). cheers Pascal On 6/25/20 2:15 PM, Hopper, Edward - CTR wrote: I know this is a bit off topic but since we deal with a huge amount of compute nodes I will shoot to the group. Looking for a script to change the bios passwords all at once. Any help would be appreciated. */Edward Hopper/* // /Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system ~ Seymour Cray/ ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
Re: [lustre-discuss] patchless server vs. patched server
Hi George that used to be the case until before 2.10.1, but since 2.10.1 even ldiskfs does not require a patch anymore. I have actually updated from a patched 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 patchless and i am using ldiskfs for my MDTs and ZFS for the OSTs but i think i just found out why there are still both versions being packed.. while i was looking for a link to quote regarding ldiskfs now working without a patch, i actually found the announcement of 2.10.1 at http://lustre.org/lustre-2-10-1-released/ which states "Patchless server build for ldiskfs is now routinely provided. Note that the patched kernel version must still be used to make use of project quotas" And here is the document that my question was based upon: http://wiki.lustre.org/Installing_the_Lustre_Software it states: "Note: With the release of Lustre version 2.10.1, it is possible to use patchless kernels for Lustre servers running LDISKFS. The patchless LDISKFS server distribution does not include a Linux kernel. Instead, patchless servers will use the kernel distributed with the operating system." and here is a LUDOC issue regarding documenting this in the official lustre documentation: https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-435 (amazing what you can find once you know what to look for ;)) i have applied for a lustre.org wiki account to add this missing piece of information which should help people to choose better if they want to use the patched or patchless kernel. luckily i'm not using the project quota feature ;) cheers Pascal On 6/2/20 1:50 PM, George Melikov wrote: IIRC "patchless server" can only serve ZFS based backends. So, it you really need ldiskfs - you're stuck with patched kernel for now. 27.05.2020, 18:41, "Pascal Suter" : Hi all i am currently upgrading a lustre 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 on CentOS 7.7 and I am unsure if I should use the patchless or patched server version. what is the advantage of still using the patched server version over using the patchless variant? From an linux sysadmin point of view I prefer to use an unpatched kernel and it would seem unnecessary to still maintain a patched variant if they both worked the same in the end. regards Pascal ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org <mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org Sincerely, George Melikov ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
Re: [lustre-discuss] Centos 7.7 upgrade
Hi where you using the rpms from the whamcloud repo? if so, check if you have installed the kmod-lustre-osd-zfs and lustre-osd-zfs-mount packages. IIRC i had the same errors when the kmod-lustre-osd-zfs package was missing on my system. cheers Pascal On 6/2/20 1:20 AM, Alastair Basden wrote: Hi, We have just upgraded Lustre servers from 2.12.2 on centos 7.6 to 2.12.3 on centos 7.7. The OSSs are on top of zfs (0.7.13 as recommended), and we are using 3.10.0-1062.1.1.el7_lustre.x86_64 After the update, Lustre will no longer mount - and messages such as: Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 158-c: Can't load module 'osd-zfs' Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: Skipped 875 previous similar messages Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226253:0:(genops.c:397:class_newdev()) OBD: unknown type: osd-zfs Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_config.c:403:class_attach()) Cannot create device lustfs-OST0006-osd of type osd-zfs : -19 Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_config.c:403:class_attach()) Skipped 881 previous similar messages Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount.c:197:lustre_start_simple()) lustfs-OST0006-osd attach error -19 Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount.c:197:lustre_start_simple()) Skipped 881 previous similar messages Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount_server.c:1947:server_fill_super()) Unable to start osd on lustfs-ost6/ost6: -19 Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount_server.c:1947:server_fill_super()) Skipped 881 previous similar messages Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount.c:1608:lustre_fill_super()) Unable to mount (-19) Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226265:0:(obd_mount.c:1608:lustre_fill_super()) Skipped 881 previous similar messages Jun 2 00:02:44 hostname kernel: LustreError: 226253:0:(genops.c:397:class_newdev()) Skipped 887 previous similar messages Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks, Alastair. ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
[lustre-discuss] patchless server vs. patched server
Hi all i am currently upgrading a lustre 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 on CentOS 7.7 and I am unsure if I should use the patchless or patched server version. what is the advantage of still using the patched server version over using the patchless variant? From an linux sysadmin point of view I prefer to use an unpatched kernel and it would seem unnecessary to still maintain a patched variant if they both worked the same in the end. regards Pascal ___ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
