9:11 a.m.
Yes, these versions are compatible. You wouldn't be able to use the newer features in
2.7.0, but you will likely see better performance.
Cheers, Andreas
On Mar 14, 2015, at 09:12, Nguyen Viet Cuong
<mrcuongnv@gmail.com<mailto:mrcuongnv@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Farrell,
Could we get the performance gain by using 2.7 client with 2.5.3 server? If yes, is there
any trade off in compatibility?
Regards,
Cuong
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Patrick Farrell
<paf@cray.com<mailto:paf@cray.com>> wrote:
Bob,
About performance, as well. In general, 2.6/2.7 client performance is significantly
better than 2.5 (server performance is largely the same). There are certain specific
cases with particular hardware configurations and workloads that are worse, but in
general, I'd say improved client performance is perhaps the best reason to choose 2.6
over 2.5.3. (Certainly 2.6 is going to be a bit buggier than 2.5.3, which as the
maintenance branch has had a significant amount of work done on it since 2.6 was
released.)
- Patrick
On 03/13/2015 09:28 AM, Bob Ball wrote:
Thank you, Peter. That is helpful information. We are currently leaning towards 2.6, but
if the upgrade path from there to 2.7 is simple, and can work with OST/MDT created under
2.6, then that may be the path that we'll follow. We need to bring the new system
online quite soon.
Regards,
bob
On 3/13/2015 10:20 AM, Jones, Peter A wrote:
Hi Bob
I know that you are really looking for responses directly from sites
running the releases in production but a couple of things that you might
be helpful for you to know:
1) The recent OpenSFS survey 10 out of the 89 respondents said that they
were using 2.6 in production
2) Lustre 2.7 is expected to be released quite soon and will be more
current in kernel version, zfs version and bug fixes.
Regards
Peter
On 3/13/15, 6:49 AM, "Bob Ball"
<ball@umich.edu<mailto:ball@umich.edu>> wrote:
Hi,
We are about to set up a new Lustre system here, and we are trying to
decide between using 2.5.3 or 2.6.0 . Files in our older 2.1.6 system
will simply be migrated over, and the old system tossed down the tubes.
Is anyone using 2.6.0 in production? I found this on some 2.6.0
performance data, and it looks rather discouraging.
https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4841?filter=10828
I have also noticed that the 2.5.3 server rpms actually use a slightly
newer kernel than the 2.6.0 set. By and large, we will use zfs
underlying the OST.
So, I will gladly accept any advice on which way we should turn as we
set this up.
Thanks,
bob
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org<mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org<mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org<mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
--
Nguyen Viet Cuong
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org<mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss