Bug#273713: Lustre packaging
Hi Alastair,
just poking through the package so far, and i noticed that etch is using
gcc4.1 and cross referencing the lustre-discuss list, i noticed that
even though 4.x is targetted but isnt working right, 3.3 / 3.4 seems to be
a better choice for compilers for lustre (at least for now) if one wantss a
more stable system.
quoting the lustre discuss list (though a nearly a month old at this
point in time)...
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:30:41 -0400
From: "Peter J. Braam" <braam@clusterfs.com>
Subject: RE: [Lustre-discuss] GCC version(s)
To: <jrd@jrd.org>
Cc: lustre-discuss@clusterfs.com
It looks like it consumes more stack than the gcc3 family, and we have
seen crashes due to that. We are not 100% sure about this, but this is
what we are guessing at the moment.
- Peter -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jrd@jrd.org [mailto:jrd@jrd.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: Peter J. Braam
> Cc: lustre-discuss@clusterfs.com
> Subject: [Lustre-discuss] GCC version(s)
>
> From: "Peter J. Braam" <braam@clusterfs.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:53:02 -0400
>
> Hi
>
> The gcc4 problem will be tackled during the coming
> months. We hope, of
> course, to increase our agility and keep up a little better.
>
> That's good to hear.
>
> What exactly is the problem with gcc4? It won't compile?
> Wierd errors at runtime? Something else?
>
>
Jimmy.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 01:24:44PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Jimmy Tang wrote:
> > Hi Alastair,
> >
> >
> >> The 2.6.16 code I have works for light use: survives some tests such as
> >> bonnie, etc.
> >> but hangs in large workloads: I'm debugging this, but would prefer to
> >> target 2.6.17 for Etch.
> >> (even if we don't get in the Etch release, I'd like to support the
> >> stable kernel.) Some patches
> >> ported to 2.6.17.
> >>
> >
> > Out of curiousity what sort of heavy workloads are you trying out on the
> > system?
> >
> >
> None at the moment; we've a small test cluster that had driver issues up
> to 2.6.17, and so i'm trying out 2.6.17.
> > I'd be interested in testing the package out on a small test cluster
> > here as well for users who have heavy IO needs.
> >
> > also is there any interest in testing these patches for 2.6.16/17 with
> > with the openib patches/stacks?
> >
> >
> >
> give it a bit to sort out some issues with the packaging. The current
> head-of-tree
> in the repo is definitely a Work in progress, concentrating on merging
> current work
> by Goswin von Brederlow and myself (and others); I plan to get an
> experimental release
> worth proper testing, then we can add openib patches. I'll email you as
> soon as thats
> ready. Do you have openib patches for 2.6.16/17 ?
> > Jimmy.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Alastair
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
---end quoted text---
--
Jimmy Tang
Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing,
Lloyd Building, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
http://www.tchpc.tcd.ie/
Reply to: