"John R. Dunning" writes:
>
> We are working with cfs. That doesn't mean they're doing all our work for us
> :-}
>
> Honestly, a big part of it is just plain old market sensitivity. Cfs is
> paying attention to where their bread and butter is. So far, that's not
> gentoo. Perhaps if sicortex
From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:15:54 -0800
"John R. Dunning" writes:
> From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I was able to patch the kernel, but the server was somewhat unstable.
>
> Do you remember how it wa
From: Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:29:00 -0800
[...]
I've just got a couple comments on this.
* The gentoo-sources patches are almost all upstream and based on the
W.X.Y.Z "stable release" patchsets, except for 2-3 cases that probab
Donnie Berkholz writes:
>
> * The gentoo-sources patches are almost all upstream and based on the
> W.X.Y.Z "stable release" patchsets, except for 2-3 cases that probably
> aren't relevant to clusters. As a result, Gentoo folks would be
> reasonably well off just running vanilla-sources, which gro
John R. Dunning wrote:
> From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A longer term solution is to do some combination of remodularizing vfs and
> recasting the lustre stuff so as to depend less on getting its fingers into
> the guts. I once spent some time looking into that, and I do believe it's
"John R. Dunning" writes:
> From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I was able to patch the kernel, but the server was somewhat unstable.
>
> Do you remember how it was unstable? That's the kind of thing I'd very much
> like to understand, as we're proposing to depend heavily on
From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:56:46 -0800
[...]
By comparison, 'mount -t lustre' pretty much characterizes
the
simplicity of 1.6.
Agreed.
> Are you worrying about the kernel patching and other software installation
"John R. Dunning" writes:
> From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It is encouraging to hear that you are willing to base a product on Lustre
> 1.6.
>
> There are problems either way, but based on my experience, I believe 1.6 is a
> better choice, at least for the kind of sit
From: Bryan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:33:12 -0800
"John R. Dunning" writes:
> From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:49 -0200
>
> Question: would you use Lustre 1.6 now or you woul
"John R. Dunning" writes:
> From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:49 -0200
>
> Question: would you use Lustre 1.6 now or you would wait until the
> official version is out?
>
> If I had to ship today, I'd probably ship the 1.6b5 code
From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:49 -0200
Well, my first Lustre test was crashing on every 'write' operation.
Them I enabled LVM and it worked. I'm using only the vanilla 2.6.12.6
kernel with the lastest 1.4 release.
I'd
"Daniel van Ham Colchete" writes:
>
> Question: do you expect in upgrade incopability between the current
> 1.6 beta and next betas or the official version?
According to the person that I talked to at CFS, the beta is pretty much
finished, and they are waiting for tester feedback before releasin
On 12/5/06, John R. Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:55:12 -0200
[...]
Lustre uses a lot of kernel features that if not enabled will
cause the kernel to crash.
[...]
I don't think that's true.
"John R. Dunning" writes:
>
> Lustre 1.6 (at least the client end) doesn't even really *require* all those
> kernel patches, ie they do support the idea of a patchless client. The issue
> is that lustre changes the logic involved in various kinds of fs operations,
> including anything related to
From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:55:12 -0200
[...]
Lustre uses a lot of kernel features that if not enabled will
cause the kernel to crash.
[...]
I don't think that's true.
I've been running lustre on assorted kernels, mos
Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote:
I studied Lustre last week a little bit and, talking about MDSs and
OSSs, I came with one reason for them not to make Lustre to support
Gentoo: Lustre uses a lot of kernel features that if not enabled will
cause the kernel to crash.
I didn't find any documentation
I studied Lustre last week a little bit and, talking about MDSs and
OSSs, I came with one reason for them not to make Lustre to support
Gentoo: Lustre uses a lot of kernel features that if not enabled will
cause the kernel to crash.
I didn't find any documentation explaning those features but I c
Donnie Berkholz writes:
> Bryan Green wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz writes:
> >> I guess that means we should get in touch with them to get on the
> >> supported systems list. =)
> >
> > Sounds like a fine idea to me. :)
> > I talked to someone there at SC06, but they did not sound terribly open to
Ainkaboot and our customers would probably be interested in Lustre and paid
support.
Hanni
On 04/12/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Green wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz writes:
>> I guess that means we should get in touch with them to get on the
>> supported systems list. =)
>
>
Bryan Green wrote:
Donnie Berkholz writes:
I guess that means we should get in touch with them to get on the
supported systems list. =)
Sounds like a fine idea to me. :)
I talked to someone there at SC06, but they did not sound terribly open to
the idea of directing precious resources in that
Donnie Berkholz writes:
> Bryan Green wrote:
> > Yes, I actually used those ebuilds to test Lustre on our "mini" 3x3
> > hyperwall which runs Gentoo. I was able to get it working, but over here
> > they want the supported, released version, whereas those ebuilds are for th
> e
> > beta. I tried t
Bryan Green wrote:
Yes, I actually used those ebuilds to test Lustre on our "mini" 3x3
hyperwall which runs Gentoo. I was able to get it working, but over here
they want the supported, released version, whereas those ebuilds are for the
beta. I tried to install the released version, but eventua
On Dec 2, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Bryan Green wrote:
I'd very interested in the different approaches here. I had
thought about a
static portage tree, but that left the problem of getting needed
updates,
especially GLSA's. Your suggested approach sounds very interesting.
How big of an extra admi
"Hanni Ali" writes:
>
> The cluster will be a "hyperwall", meaning that each node
> > > will have graphics, forming a grid of displays for multi-parameter,
> > > multi-dimensional scientific visualization.
>
>
> Sounds fascinating I do hope you will report how it goes and what method
> you use
Donnie Berkholz writes:
> Bryan Green wrote:
> > I am looking for something of a survey of examples of Gentoo-driven cluster
> s
> > out there. If such a survey has been done, perhaps someone point me to it.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/cluster/#doc_chap2
Whoa, I don't know how I missed tha
Unfortunately we haven't done a gentoo cluster, though with portage
maintenance would be easy. I did want to comment on your processor choice. If
you choose quad core your only option currently is Intel clovertown. These
machines are power hungry. I would reccomend waiting for the opteron quad
Hi Bryan,
I run a start up which provides Gentoo based clusters for a wide variety of
applications. I find it far simpler to maintain and run Gentoo, portage
simplifies maintenance so much.
The cluster will be a "hyperwall", meaning that each node
> will have graphics, forming a grid of display
Bryan Green wrote:
Hello all,
I am looking for something of a survey of examples of Gentoo-driven clusters
out there. If such a survey has been done, perhaps someone point me to it.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/cluster/#doc_chap2
But I would like to hear from others on the list about their
Hello all,
I am looking for something of a survey of examples of Gentoo-driven clusters
out there. If such a survey has been done, perhaps someone point me to it.
But I would like to hear from others on the list about their clusters.
I am in the process of advocating for using Gentoo on a new cl
29 matches
Mail list logo
