[Lustre-discuss] Lustre 1.8 patched kernel for RHEL5 clients?

[Peter Kjellstrom]

On Saturday 18 April 2009, Alex Lyashkov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for clients, main difference is two patches -
> first is adjust stack size to 8k, this need for run nfs and lustre
> clients at same node, otherwise can be stack overflow.

A late comment. This only applies to 32-bit RHEL since x86_64 already uses 8K 
kernel stack.

/Peter

> second patch is light changes in dcache - which allow less tricky work
> with dcache.
>
> any big performance changes should be don't exist.
>
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 06:06 -0700, Adeyemi Adesanya wrote:
> > Is there ANY reason for running a patched lustre 1.8 RHEL5 kernel vs.
> > an unpatched RHEL5 kernel on a client machine? My impression so far is
> > that there is no need (assuming that the unpatched kernel is newer
> > than 2.6.???)  Just wanted to confirm that there is no slight
> > performance advantage for RHEL5 lustre clients that run a patched
> > kernel.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20090507/ec338213/attachment.pgp>