[lustre-devel] (no subject)

[Dilger, Andreas]

It's fine to add the lnet-specific functionality from lctl to lnetctl, but we shouldn't remove existing functionality from lctl to avoid breaking scripts that may be using it today.  4+ releases after all of the LNet specific lctl functionality has been added to lnetctl we can start printing deprecation warnings, and after 8+ releases they can be removed.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel High Performance Data Division

On 2017/01/10, 18:08, "lustre-devel on behalf of Amir Shehata" <lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org> on behalf of amir.shehata.whamcloud at gmail.com<mailto:amir.shehata.whamcloud at gmail.com>> wrote:

lnetctl was designed to control LNet only. We have not moved the rest of the lctl functionality. lctl does a lot of other lustre specific functions.

The idea was to have lnetctl be only LNet specific, and lctl lustre specific. In essence we are attempting to decouple LNet from lustre. There has been some talk about upstreaming LNet before lustre with all the work that James Simmons from ORNL is doing.

thanks
amir

On 10 January 2017 at 14:06, Christopher J. Morrone <morrone2 at llnl.gov<mailto:morrone2 at llnl.gov>> wrote:
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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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<mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20170111/60435393/attachment-0001.htm>