[Lustre-devel] moving /proc to $MNT/.lustre

Andreas Dilger adilger at sun.com
Mon Jan 7 12:07:18 PST 2008

On Jan 07, 2008  13:10 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 09:50 -0800, Nathan Rutman wrote:
> > well, that's why I asked.  As I said, Andreas and I are in agreement, 
> > and it certainly makes sense from a portability point of view, as well 
> > as consistency with future features (snapshots, audit logs, etc.), and 
> > the final elimination of our various /proc locking headaches.  But yes, 
> > it would break user's scripts  - that's a 1-time thing, and I think not 
> > too terrible.
> Is it possible to support both for a release or two to give people time
> to migrate and have an actual implementation to test against as they
> work to port their scripts?  The alternative is that given that we don't
> provide public beta binaries or nightly snapshot binaries, we'd be
> requiring people who want to port, test and release their ports on "flag
> day" to build from CVS to test.

It wasn't mentioned here, but this is already planned.  There will be
new commands "lctl get_param" and "lctl set_param" (or similar) that
will be usable by scripts to get/set Lustre tunables.  This will work
with both /proc and .../.lustre files so will allow scripts to move
over to the new mechanism.

For user-space servers there will be no alternative but to use the lctl
mechanism since /proc entries will not exist at all.  Then again, there
will not be any existing systems using the old mechanism since uOSS will
only work with ZFS.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

More information about the lustre-devel mailing list