http://wiki.opensfs.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=LWG_Minutes_2015-11-04LWG Minutes 2015-11-04 - Revision history2026-06-22T13:39:38ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.43.3http://wiki.opensfs.org/index.php?title=LWG_Minutes_2015-11-04&diff=2146&oldid=prevJgmitter at 15:22, 28 July 20172017-07-28T15:22:39Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 08:22, 28 July 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l66">Line 66:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 66:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Next call on 12/2.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Next call on 12/2.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[Category:LWG]]</ins></div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key wiki_opensfs_org-wiki_:diff:1.41:old-1992:rev-2146:php=table -->
</table>Jgmitterhttp://wiki.opensfs.org/index.php?title=LWG_Minutes_2015-11-04&diff=1992&oldid=prevSpitzcor: Meeting minutes from November 4, 20152015-11-04T18:25:18Z<p>Meeting minutes from November 4, 2015</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>'''Attendance:'''<br />
<br />
Cray: Justin Miller, Ben Evans, Patrick Farrell, Chris Horn, Cory Spitz<br /><br />
ORNL: Sarp Oral, James Simmons<br /><br />
Indiana: Steve Simms<br /><br />
Intel: Joseph Gmitter, Peter Jones, Paul Sathis<br /><br />
Fermilab: Alex Kulyavtsev<br /><br />
Seagate: Kapak Shah<br /><br />
Anyone else?<br /><br />
<br />
Board is likely to confirm Peter and Sarp at their next meeting. We’re happy and grateful to turn the reigns over to Peter & Sarp.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2.8 release status/update'''<br />
<br />
Peter: Really stressing DNE under failover. Finding some problems, working through patches and doing more debugging. Livermore has reported some oddities, like LU-6994, which is a blocker. Trying to identify what is needed left to fix, then code freeze will commence. Long pole is DNE.<br />
<br />
Kalpak: Seagate has been doing some performance testing. Seeing metadata perf slowdown (especially opens) compared to Seagate’s 2.5.1 w/fixes back ported. Will get an LU ticket opened soon. Probably not a blocker. Not testing DNE.<br />
<br />
James: reports on several efforts<br />
:large scale tests with 2.8 clients (had problem with routers using mlx5 & OFED 3.12) LU-7351<br />
:mlx5 & OFED 3.12 (as above)<br />
:profiling on DNE2. Perf drops down for larger stripes<br />
:Power8 nodes: small I/O packets cause evictions with continuous reconnects and evictions<br />
:Still carrying DNE patches, LU-7039 and others, but not much DNE testing right now<br />
:debugging LU-7173: MDS oops w/2.8 client [2.5 server]<br />
Next large scale testing out a week, depends on LNET router and SC15<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Status/update of In-tree (Linux) client development'''<br />
<br />
James: Flood of patches in-progress. libcfs looking like mostly cleanup. libcfs & lnet could still be ready by next LUG. By the time RHEL 8 comes out, we could have no need to install on routers.<br />
<br />
James is going to ask Greg K-H to release libcfs & LNET first. James can help coordinate some effort there. Would be good to have a wiki with how to contribute. We don’t have a page for the upstream effort right now. James will do a quick write-up on the wiki.lustre.org for how to submit upstream.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Looking ahead to 2.9'''<br />
<br />
First 5 things on the current projects list look like possible candidates. Anything else? James pointed out several smaller issues [that I wasn’t able to capture]: LU-5030 (sys fs), LU-5541, LNET lctl (avoid lctl on router nodes). LU-7140 large RPCs. mlx5 needs support.<br />
<br />
Peter: we should have been scoping 2.9 already. Peter took an AI to come back to this group with a straw man proposal for what’s in the next release to be discussed on the next call.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lustre release cadence'''<br />
<br />
We haven’t been good about hitting our 6 month schedules. Cory proposed a 9 month cadence just to recognize reality. Certainly pros/cons to any scheme. Should be up for discussion. How/when to decide?<br />
<br />
Now is the time to evaluate with 2.8 wrapping up and 2.9 planning under weigh.<br />
<br />
Peter: Worst slippage was on 2.4 that had a huge amount of change. 2.2 came in right on time. Seems to depend upon how much change we decide to insert.<br />
<br />
Paul S. chimed in from a business/sales perspective. Need to put in writing what we want/expect and then stick to it. Not good if we say 9 months and it slips to 12.<br />
<br />
Still relying on volunteers. Tree contract currently doesn’t cover all the work needed.<br />
<br />
Feature branches are intertwined in this all. We need a test plan executed to prove that features are ready to be integrated to master. Cory still plans to start wiki page stub on feature branching.<br />
<br />
Are there test plans for 2.9 candidates? There should be. We need a matrix of whom is doing what. Peter will work stabilization into the 2.9 straw man and we’ll discuss on the next call.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Any other business?'''<br />
<br />
Anyone at SC? Just Sarp & Peter from this call.<br />
<br />
We decided to cancel next scheduled 11/18 call due to SC.<br />
<br />
Next call on 12/2.</div>Spitzcor