<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi George <br>
</p>
<p>that used to be the case until before 2.10.1, but since 2.10.1
even ldiskfs does not require a patch anymore. I have actually
updated from a patched 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 patchless and i am using
ldiskfs for my MDTs and ZFS for the OSTs</p>
<p>but i think i just found out why there are still both versions
being packed.. while i was looking for a link to quote regarding
ldiskfs now working without a patch, i actually found the
announcement of 2.10.1 at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lustre.org/lustre-2-10-1-released/">http://lustre.org/lustre-2-10-1-released/</a> which states <br>
</p>
<p> "Patchless server build for ldiskfs is now routinely provided.
Note that the patched kernel version must still be used to make
use of project quotas"</p>
<p>And here is the document that my question was based upon: <br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.lustre.org/Installing_the_Lustre_Software">http://wiki.lustre.org/Installing_the_Lustre_Software</a></p>
<p>it states: <br>
</p>
<p>"Note: With the release of Lustre version 2.10.1, it is possible
to use patchless kernels for Lustre servers running LDISKFS. The
patchless LDISKFS server distribution does not include a Linux
kernel. Instead, patchless servers will use the kernel distributed
with the operating system." <br>
</p>
<p>and here is a LUDOC issue regarding documenting this in the
official lustre documentation: <br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-435">https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-435</a></p>
<p>(amazing what you can find once you know what to look for ;)) <br>
</p>
<p>i have applied for a lustre.org wiki account to add this missing
piece of information which should help people to choose better if
they want to use the patched or patchless kernel. luckily i'm not
using the project quota feature ;) <br>
</p>
<p>cheers</p>
<p>Pascal <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/2/20 1:50 PM, George Melikov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:73541591098503@mail.yandex.ru">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>IIRC "patchless server" can only serve ZFS based backends.<br>
So, it you really need ldiskfs - you're stuck with patched
kernel for now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>27.05.2020, 18:41, "Pascal Suter"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pascal.suter@dalco.ch"><pascal.suter@dalco.ch></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<p>Hi all<br>
<br>
i am currently upgrading a lustre 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 on CentOS
7.7 and I<br>
am unsure if I should use the patchless or patched server
version. what<br>
is the advantage of still using the patched server version
over using<br>
the patchless variant? From an linux sysadmin point of view I
prefer to<br>
use an unpatched kernel and it would seem unnecessary to still
maintain<br>
a patched variant if they both worked the same in the end.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Pascal<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
lustre-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org</a></p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="color:#000000;font:12px
'noteworthy-light';text-transform:none;white-space:normal"><span
style="font-family:'noteworthy-light'">____________________________________</span><br>
Sincerely,<br>
George Melikov</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>