[lustre-discuss] lustre client server interoperability

[Scott Nolin]

I'd just add that we've been generally OK for running a variety of 2.X 
servers vs 2.whatever clients.

For our latest project I hear we're going to try 2.7 server and 2.8 
client. The client machines for us are much more likely to need OS 
versions pushed forward.

Regarding interim patches to Lustre, my feeling is the important thing 
is to simply know what patches are critical. I believe all the patches 
are still public from Intel (and how about others people providing 
lustre patches).

There has been some discussion about sharing information on people's 
patch sets on wiki.lustre.org, but I haven't see anything come out.

Patrick, is Cray providing public maintenance releases? Or sharing 
information on important patches?

Scott


On 8/12/2015 7:32 AM, Patrick Farrell wrote:
> Jon,
>
> You've got the interop right.
>
> Unfortunately, Intel is no longer doing public maintenance versions of Lustre, so 2.8 will not receive updates after release.
>
> - Patrick
> ________________________________________
> From: Jon Tegner [jon.tegner at foi.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 1:16 AM
> To: Patrick Farrell; Kurt Strosahl
> Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org; Jan Pettersson
> Subject: SV: lustre client server interoperability
>
> So if I understand correctly one has the following "centos options":
>
> 1. Lustre-2.5.3 with CentOS-6 on both clients and servers.
> 2. Lustre-2.5.3, CentOS-6 on servers, and 2.7.0 and CentOS-7 on clients.
> 3. Wait a while and use Lustre-2.8.0/CentOS-7 on clients and servers.
>
> At least on clients I would prefer to run CentOS-7, but if 2.7 (and 2.8 - will this version receive updates?) are less reliable that might not be a good idea?
>
> Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /jon
>
> ________________________________________
> Från: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org> för Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com>
> Skickat: den 11 augusti 2015 21:23
> Till: Kurt Strosahl
> Kopia: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> Ämne: Re: [lustre-discuss] lustre client server interoperability
>
> No - 2.5 is the last public stable client release from Intel.
>
> On 8/11/15, 2:22 PM, "Kurt Strosahl" <strosahl at jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> So is there a stable client for centos 7 that is backwards compatible
>> with 2.5.3?
>>
>> w/r,
>> Kurt
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Patrick Farrell" <paf at cray.com>
>> To: "Kurt Strosahl" <strosahl at jlab.org>, lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:24:15 PM
>> Subject: RE: lustre client server interoperability
>>
>> Kurt,
>>
>> Yes.  It's worth noting that 2.7 is probably marginally less reliable
>> than 2.5, since it has had no updates/fixes since it was released.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: lustre-discuss [lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] on behalf
>> of Kurt Strosahl [strosahl at jlab.org]
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:25 PM
>> To: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> Subject: [lustre-discuss] lustre client server interoperability
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>    Is the 2.7 lustre client compatible with lustre 2.5.3 servers?  I'm
>> running a 2.5.3 system lustre system, but have been asked by a few people
>> about upgrading some of our clients to CentOS 7 (which appears to need a
>> 2.7 or greater client).
>>
>> w/r,
>> Kurt J. Strosahl
>> System Administrator
>> Scientific Computing Group, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
>> _______________________________________________
>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6268 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20150812/9bbfa3a6/attachment-0001.bin>