[lustre-discuss] oldest lustre deployment?

[Peter Jones]

Ah I see your intended meaning now. Yes, that makes much more sense ☺ While older versions are indeed in use, perhaps it is enough for software interacting with Lustre to state the minimum Lustre version required and throw an error is someone tries to use something older?

From: Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:31 AM
To: Peter Jones <pjones at whamcloud.com>, "Latham, Robert J." <robl at mcs.anl.gov>, "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org" <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] oldest lustre deployment?

No, Peter - I just meant assuming 2.7 or newer is everywhere is not a safe assumption!  No comment intended on what versions are safe to run.  If asked, I would definitely recommend something newer than 2.5.

________________________________
From: Peter Jones <pjones at whamcloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 10:25:54 AM
To: Patrick Farrell; Latham, Robert J.; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] oldest lustre deployment?


I agree that there are still sites running Lustre 1.8.x in production, but I don’t think that it is a reasonable assumption that 2.7 or newer isn’t safe yet – I think that most vendors (including your employer 😉 ) are shipping something based on 2.7 or newer. My gut feeling is that if the usage survey was conducted today rather than six months ago that 2.10.x would come out as the clear leader (rather than being tied with 2.5.x). It’s also still possible to get support for older releases, but the matrix was “cleaned up” recently because the volume of information there made it hard for people to find the most current info, which is what most visitors were looking for. I’m fine to alter it again if there is demand to do so.



From: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org> on behalf of Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 8:07 AM
To: "Latham, Robert J." <robl at mcs.anl.gov>, "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org" <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] oldest lustre deployment?



Oh, yes.  Absolutely.  Many sites are running 2.5, a few are evening running 1.8.



It's not "officially supported", but that's all those matrices indicate.



Sorry, assuming 2.7 or newer isn't safe yet.  2.5 may still be the largest single release by usage.



Check these slides for an update from this year on what's being run:
http://cdn.opensfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Jones-Community_Release_Update_LUG_2018.pdf



- Patrick

________________________________

From: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org> on behalf of Latham, Robert J. <robl at mcs.anl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 9:40:31 AM
To: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
Subject: [lustre-discuss] oldest lustre deployment?



I am looking at the patch to ROMIO to support the new Progressive File

Layout feature:



https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9657

and

https://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/27869/10



This change greatly reworks ROIMIO's support for determining striping count and stripe size.  I'm all for using the 'llapi_layout' routines instead of bare ioctl() calls, but llapi_layout did not show up until 2.7 I think.



Is there any chance that some enviroment out there is still running a

lustre from 2014 or earlier?



Nothing before 2.10 shows up in the "community matrix"



https://wiki.whamcloud.com/display/PUB/Lustre+Support+Matrix



but I do see some fairly old versions in the "intel releases"



https://wiki.whamcloud.com/display/PUB/Lustre+Support+Matrix+-+Intel+Releases



==rob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20180815/9bb7a433/attachment.html>