[lustre-devel] (no subject)

[Christopher J. Morrone]

Sounds good to me.  Ideally, lnetctl should be able to do everything
that lctl could do (plus all of the new features).  Has it reached
parity?  If not, what else still remains to be done?

Chris

On 01/10/2017 12:15 PM, Amir Shehata wrote:
> lctl usage is kept for backwards compatibility. Eventually, we should be
> moving to using lnetctl exclusively. Which lustre-release we should do
> that in, is the question. 2.10?
> 
> thanks
> amir
> 
> On 4 January 2017 at 16:16, Di Natale, Giuseppe <dinatale2 at llnl.gov
> <mailto:dinatale2 at llnl.gov>> wrote:
> 
>     Greetings,
> 
>     I am attempting to port the SysV lnet script as part of a transition
>     to systemd. I ran into the following in lustre/scripts/lnet:
> 
>             if [ -x $LUSTRE_LNET_CONFIG_UTILITY -a -f
>     "$LUSTRE_LNET_CONFIG_FILE" ]; then
>                     $LUSTRE_LNET_CONFIG_UTILITY lnet configure || exit 1
>             else
>                     lctl network up || exit 1
>             fi
> 
>     Can the check for LUSTRE_LNET_CONFIG_UTILITY  (/usr/sbin/lnetctl by
>     default) be removed so that way lnetctl is used exclusively?
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Giuseppe Di Natale
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     lustre-devel mailing list
>     lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org <mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>
>     http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>     <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>