[lustre-devel] (no subject)

Christopher J. Morrone morrone2 at llnl.gov
Tue Jan 17 13:32:23 PST 2017


On 01/16/2017 01:02 PM, James Simmons 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?
> 
> No lctl pings and the peer and connection handling is missing. I did
> some work to support the missing features in lnetctl and combined with
> multi-rail should fill in the gaps. Also we are missing lnetctl ping
> but I think multi-rail might fix that. Not 100% sure tho.

Thanks, James.  That is the information that I was looking for.

Chris



More information about the lustre-devel mailing list