[lustre-discuss] lshowmount equivalent?

Thomas Stibor t.stibor at gsi.de
Tue Dec 15 07:35:35 PST 2015

I have pushed an updated version of lshowmount where warnings and mostly
strcat -> strncat, sprintf -> snprintf are fixed, as well as other issues.

This is a very cool and useful tool which I was not aware before.
I did tested parameter "-l -v -e" combinations on MDT/MGS and OSS,
and it works so far.


I did some testing with the "old" lshowmount tool and found it very usefu

On 12/15/2015 01:26 AM, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> I've pushed patch http://review.whamcloud.com/17593 to restore this tool
> to the tree, but I'm not even sure if it builds yet.  If someone with a
> vested interest in using this tool could take over that patch, then it can
> land in a finite time, as I've never used it myself and have lots of other
> things to work on.
> That means someone who knows how this tool is supposed to work needs to
> fix any compile problems, test it a bit manually, and make a short test in
> conf-sanity.sh that verifies it continues to work as expected in the
> future.
> I don't mind to carry this in the Lustre tree, so that it can be updated
> as things change (e.g. /proc to /sys conversion and such), but it needs at
> minimum a new test so that it doesn't silently break in the future.
> Cheers, Andreas
> On 2015/12/14, 09:08, "lustre-discuss on behalf of Scott Nolin"
> <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org on behalf of
> scott.nolin at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 12:43 AM, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
>> ...
>>> Is this a tool that you are using?  IIRC, there wasn't a particular
>>> reason
>>> that it was removed, except that when we asked LLNL (the authors) they
>>> said they were no longer using it, and we couldn't find anyone that was
>>> using it so it was removed in commit b5a7260ae8f along with a bunch of
>>> other old tools.
>> Thanks for the reply, indeed we were using it. We don't use it daily,
>> but when doing some things it is really convenient.
>>> If there is a demand for lshowmount I don't think it would be hard to
>>> reinstate.
>> If it makes more sense for it to be a separate tool outside the lustre
>> code base, that'd be fine too I think.
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
> Cheers, Andreas

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list