Thanks, Patrick; your help is invaluable; can I take this to imply that 2.8.0 will formally support CentOS 7 as a server? Can you (or anyone else on the list who may be listening) offer an estimate on when 2.8.0 will be "frozen" just for the sake of my future planning?

I will consider your advice and take advantage of the experimental mandate I've been given and hack around a little bit within ... I think the 2.7 train ... I can't go back to CentOS 6 with the 2.6.x kernel given hardware considerations ... to try to get a feel for what will work best in our environment ... I appreciate your time in responding to my queries here!

Best,

Sean


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Farrell <paf@cray.com> wrote:
No, for server, it's CentOS 6 for everything earlier than current development branches (which will become 2.8.0).

For client, it can be built for nearly any linux kernel from 2.6.32 vintage up to somewhere around 3.16.  (Someone else will know the exact latest.)

If you'd like stability, 2.5 is your best bet as it was the last maintenance release (pull the 2.5 branch, I believe it saw patches committed after the last tagged release, 2.5.3).  If you're going features, there's no reason to pick 2.6 instead of 2.7, so just go with 2.7.  As for a compromise...  That's a hard thing to judge.  My ideal combination, personally, would be 2.7 clients and 2.5 servers, as the largest recent improvements have been to clients.

We should really get some wiki pages written for these questions...

- Patrick
From: Sean Caron [scaron@umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:46 PM
To: Chris Horn; Sean Caron
Cc: Patrick Farrell; hpdd-discuss@lists.01.org

Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] Performing "make rpms" on current Git pull fails with "error: line 144: Version required: Requires: kernel ="

Thanks, guys, just talked to Brock on the phone and he clued me in a little bit. I will retry with a slightly backed up version, 2.7.0 straight and see how that goes.

Just wanted to confirm -- Brock wasn't sure -- both client and server are intended to run on RHEL/CentOS 7? Looking at the release, it gives me the feeling; and it patches and compiles clean which is a strong indicator; just trying to not do anything totally nuts here.

I hate to take this particular thread too far off topic but can you guys provide any guidance on what would make a good compromise between features and stability in terms of the Lustre release? This is mostly experimental for now but will eventually lead to kind of a "pilot" deployment ... I don't want to roll out something that's essentially obsolete as soon as it hits pilot and would require an immediate update, but I don't want something too unstable for real work, either.

Thanks!

Sean


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Chris Horn <hornc@cray.com> wrote:
Print a list of all of the tags:
git tag

Create and checkout a branch at a particular tag:
git checkout -b tag_2.7.0 v2_7_0

Chris Horn
On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Sean Caron <scaron@umich.edu> wrote:

Thanks, Patrick, nice to know I'm not just going crazy :O I'm not attached necessarily to running the "bleeding edge" ... I think we want something that is fairly modern ... no older than, say, 2.5 or so ... but I don't need to pull -devel from Git ... are there tarballs available of fixed releases, or can anyone here who's more familiar with Git, give me a quick one-liner I could use to grab the entire hierarchy for something slightly more stable?

Best,

Sean


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Farrell <paf@cray.com> wrote:
I've hit this as well.  Some relatively recent commit - 2.7.0 is fine - has broken this process.  I tried to figure out what and gave up, I am now bisecting.  The specific issue seems to be that %kversion is not being read out, but I'm not sure of the why.

- Patrick Farrell
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces@lists.01.org] on behalf of Sean Caron [scaron@umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Stephen Champion; Sean Caron
Cc: hpdd-discuss@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] Performing "make rpms" on current Git pull fails with "error: line 144: Version required: Requires: kernel ="
Sorry for the confusion; that was a typo in my e-mail trying to copy and paste from my log; every time I've run that ./configure I did actually get the leading slash in there:

[build@lustre-mgs lustre-release]$ history | grep configure
   70  ./configure --with-linux=/home/build/kernel/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-3.10.0_229.4.2.el7.centos_lustre.x86_64/
   72  ./configure --with-linux=/home/build/kernel/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-3.10.0_229.4.2.el7.centos_lustre.x86_64/
   97  ./configure --with-linux=/home/build/kernel/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-3.10.0_229.4.2.el7.centos_lustre.x86_64/
  122  history | grep configure
[build@lustre-mgs lustre-release]$ 

I've tried a few "make clean" and retry attempts and I reach the same end; the make completes with no errors, but "make rpms" fails with that line 144 error.

I looked at the page Richard sent me and I don't see any material changes from section 30.2.2 on in the administrator's guide; there's a few extra packages in there that aren't mentioned in my printing of the Lustre 2.x operations manual ... but I never hit any errors previous in the build process; the kernel builds fine ... just trying to build the Lustre RPMs fails ... final step ... I feel like anything I would have made a hash of so grievously would have caused fatal errors earlier in the process, no?

Best,

Sean


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stephen Champion <schamp@sgi.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2015 12:41 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
I've been following the build directions explicitly from section 30.2.2 on only correcting for differences between CentOS 7 and RHEL 7 ... everything built clean until now, as far as I can tell. At what point in the build process would I have gone awry for that to happen?

At configure.
Right at momentary freeze as my mail client was sending, I saw the problem.


./configure --with-linux=home/build/kernel/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-3.10.0_229.4.2.el7.centos_lustre.x86_64/

the leading slash is missing.


_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss