[lustre-discuss] Questions about migrate OSTs from ldiskfs to zfs
Christopher J. Morrone
morrone2 at llnl.gov
Tue Mar 1 14:09:37 PST 2016
On 03/01/2016 01:44 PM, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
>> On 03/01/2016 09:18 AM, Alexander I Kulyavtsev wrote:
>>> is tag 220.127.116.11 considered stable?
>> No. Generally speaking you do not want to use anything with number 50
>> or greater for the fourth number unless you are helping out with testing
>> during the development process.
> I think you are mixing up things and it is the 3rd number at 50 or above
> that is the development code.
Not really, I know that too. We could expand my statement to be "50 or
greater in either the third or fourth numbers". Generally speaking,
users should not be using tags with large numbers in either the third or
fourth field. Those are not official, vetted releases.
The answer to the question "is tag 18.104.22.168 considered stable" is: no.
It was a development tag, not an official release. If one wants to use
something that isn't an official release, more power to them, but it
didn't get the testing that a real release would have had, and few
people are likely to be running it.
>> 2.5.3 was the last official release on branch b2_5 before it was
> In this case 22.214.171.124 is "almost" 2.5.4 but not quite.
> We wanted to have a tag in b2_5 before commits there ceased so that we can refer
> to it by a version number vs the "tip of b2_5".
> It contains various fixes on top of 2.5.3, but as far as I know, it did not
> undergo the actual release testing that the point release would normally undergo.
> Since the b2_5 at the time was a maintenance branch, we mostly tried to place
> important fixes there that should not have broken anything.
> But due to lack of proper release testing this could not be guaranteed by us,
> so using it is still a bit of a leap of faith, but not quite as much as say
> 126.96.36.199 or 188.8.131.52 or the like.
More information about the lustre-discuss