[Lustre-discuss] up to date documentation

[E.S. Rosenberg]

Since it's a new install I will probably try 2.4, I'm still waiting
for some hardware to start testing on.

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM, John Richards
<john.richards at icecube.wisc.edu> wrote:
> There may be useful information on lustre.org, but "up to date
> documentation" isn't it.
>
> The "Lustre Operations Manual" link on there points to
>
> http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/index.html
>
> which is not helpful - the differences between that documentation and
> current documentation caused some confusion for our organization's recent
> discussions about upgrading to Lustre 2.  Specifically wording in the
> beginning of
>
> http://wiki.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual20_HTML/UpgradingLustre.html
>
> "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients support a mix of 1.8 and 2.0 OSTs, not all OSSs
> need to be upgraded at the same time"
>
> versus
>
> http://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#upgradinglustre
>
> "Note - Lustre 1.8 clients can interoperate with 2.x servers, but the
> servers should all be upgraded at the same time."
>
> Even if the lustre.org documentation is correct for Lustre 2.0, I don't
> think anyone recommends upgrading to that version right now.
>
> John
> john.richards at icecube.wisc.edu
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 01:44 , Akam <azurelustre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The volume of information present on lustre.org is *huge* and "very
> helpful".
>
> Off course an update w.r.t. current development would be great.
>  _and_ keeping everything at one place would be nice.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Christopher J. Morrone <morrone2 at llnl.gov>
> wrote:
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> I don't think that something that might happen in the future changes the
>> accuracy of my statement.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 06/12/2013 01:06 PM, P. Kevin Canady wrote:
>> > Nor exactly accurate we are discussing with the EOFS and openSFS boards
>> > to update lustre.org
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "Christopher J. Morrone"
>> > <morrone2 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 06/12/2013 04:59 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Is lustre.org not being maintained anymore?
>> >>
>> >> Not as far as I can tell.
>> >>
>> >> The Lustre community has moved to using the OpenSFS Lustre portal
>> >> instead:
>> >>
>> >>    http://lustre.opensfs.org
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> >> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> cheers
> Akam
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>