[Lustre-discuss] Lustre-discuss Digest, Vol 35, Issue 5
Brian J. Murrell
Brian.Murrell at Sun.COM
Thu Dec 4 06:51:19 PST 2008
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 07:40 -0700, Denise Hummel wrote:
> Hi Brian;
> Thanks for the advice.
> The messages you saw were immediately prior to
> the kernel panic
There was no kernel panic in the messages you sent. You need to
understand that watch dog timeouts are not kernel panics although they
do show a stack trace similar to kernel panics.
If you do have an actual kernel panic, it was not included in the
messages you sent.
> I did do a baseline, so will try to determine the appropriate number of
> threads. You are right that we were probably oversubscribing the
> storage and just recently became overloaded with the number of Gaussian
> jobs running.
> Is it typical for a kernel panic in this situation?
As I have said before, there was no kernel panic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the lustre-discuss