Bug#273713: Lustre packaging
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks, I saw that and am using gcc-3.3 at the moment. I will try to
enforce 3.3 in
the packaging (Depends: on gcc, then gcc-3.3 in the Makefiles, etc.)
Regards
Alastair
Jimmy Tang wrote:
> 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---
>
>
Reply to: