[lustre-discuss] lnet router lustre rpm compatibility

[E.S. Rosenberg]

I always understood the recommendation was to update the clients (and LNET
Routers) before the servers and not the other way around?


On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Mohr Jr, Richard Frank (Rick Mohr) <
rmohr at utk.edu> wrote:

>
> > On Jun 20, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Jessica Otey <jotey at nrao.edu> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> > I am in the process of preparing to upgrade a production lustre system
> running 1.8.9 to 2.4.3.
> > This current system has 2 lnet routers.
> > Our plan is to perform the upgrade in 2 stages:
> > 1) Upgrade the MDS and OSSes to 2.4.3, leaving clients in 1.8.9.
> > 2) Upgrade all clients to 2.4.3 (thus allowing the entire system to be
> subsequently updated to 2.5 and beyond)
> >
> > The problem is that I can't seem to locate any information about the
> version requirements (if any) for lnet routers. Does the lnet router have
> to be the same as mds, or the same as the clients? Or both?
>
> The LNet routers do not need to be the same as either the servers or the
> clients as far as I know.  I don’t know if there is any specific
> compatibility matrix for LNet versions, but if you are mainly dealing with
> 1.8.9 and 2.4.3, I think either version would be fine.  With that being
> said, I usually try to keep my LNet routers and Lustre servers at the same
> version.  If you are going to take down your servers to upgrade to 2.4.3,
> you may as well just upgrade the two LNet routers while you are at it.  The
> clients can then be upgraded later like you listed in your plan.
>
> --
> Rick Mohr
> Senior HPC System Administrator
> National Institute for Computational Sciences
> http://www.nics.tennessee.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20160622/fa791076/attachment.htm>