LWG Minutes 2016-11-30

From OpenSFS Wiki
Revision as of 08:24, 9 December 2016 by Jgmitter (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Attendance == Cray: Cory Spitz, Justin Miller <br /> ORNL: James Simmons <br /> Indiana: Ken Rawlings <br /> Sandia: Ruth Klundt <br /> ANL: Gordon McPheeters <br /> In...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Cray: Cory Spitz, Justin Miller
ORNL: James Simmons
Indiana: Ken Rawlings
Sandia: Ruth Klundt
ANL: Gordon McPheeters
Intel: Joe Gmitter, Andreas Dilger, Peter Jones


New Actions Captured:

  • Andreas to send an email to the mailing list regarding upstream client feedback.
  • Peter to send out a poll to the mailing list for new LWG meeting time availability.

Existing Open Actions:

  • None

Actions Recently Closed:

  • None


2.9 Release Status/Update

  • We have an RC1 that is in testing at the moment.
  • Does the community have anything to report for testing?
    • Ken: IU is actively testing the shared key feature on that tag and things are going well.
    • James: We have a system up and doing some generic testing on cray systems (a build shortly before RC1). Nothing significant to report thus far.

2.10 Release Update

  • We have a few things looking to be ready to go. We will start to look at landings again very soon.
  • We will have to discuss on this call after 2.9 is ready for GA as to potential timings, etc… for the 2.10 schedule.
  • James: Will we drain the current queue of patches that are ready to land to master once it opens up for 2.10 or will we land features first?
    • Peter: It seems to make sense to land what is ready first and then move on to bigger ticket items.

Upstream Lustre Client

  • We recently submitted a bunch of patches to clean up LNet.
  • There are about 30 patches left and after getting those in we will be looking for feedback from the filesystem guys. The hope is by new year that we are in position to get feedback.
  • Andreas: We could ask someone (possibly Al Viro) in advance of the remaining patches to say that we have done the major cleanups and are interested in feedback at this point to see if there is anything major still on the board for us.
    • Peter: it would be good to get the feedback as soon as possible so that we know where we stand. What is the protocol? Who is supposed to ask and how?
      • Andreas: I believe it should go on the mailing list, but possibly directed at Al for feedback.
      • Peter: Who is best to do that?
        • Andreas took an action to send the email.


  • We have been focused on the main site, working on updating the front page.
  • We are also doing more formalized testing on mobile platforms.
  • Ken will be fleshing out what a potential Lustre kernel documentation project would look like and will bring it to the LWG before sending it out to the wider lustre-devel audience.

Other Business

  • Peter: Dustin has a conflict for the existing meeting time. We are looking for feedback on new times that could work for everyone.
    • After discussion, Peter took an action to send a poll to the mailing list to get feedback and subsequently reschedule the call.

Next meeting will be on 2016-12-15 at 11:00am Pacific