Re: [lustre-discuss] lustre vs. lustre-client
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" wrote:
On Aug 9, 2018, at 18:51, Faaland, Olaf P. 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
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
Re: [lustre-discuss] lustre vs. lustre-client
On Aug 9, 2018, at 18:51, Faaland, Olaf P. 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
Re: [lustre-discuss] lustre vs. lustre-client
IIRC, that is so, when you install the lustre server package, it also
covers the dependency on lustre-client that other packages may have. If
you look further down in the spec file, you see that:
%if %{with servers}
Requires: lustre-osd
Requires: lustre-osd-mount
Provides: lustre-client = %{version}-%{fullrelease}
%endif
Brian Andrus
On 8/9/2018 5:51 PM, Faaland, Olaf P. 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.
thanks,
Olaf P. Faaland
Livermore Computing
___
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] lustre vs. lustre-client
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.
thanks,
Olaf P. Faaland
Livermore Computing
___
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
