Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-11977

[mount.lustre] Semantics of option 'network' in routed clients

Details

    • Improvement
    • Resolution: Duplicate
    • Minor
    • None
    • Lustre 2.10.5
    • None
    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      We're currently doing some tests in a multi-tenancy environment with Lustre routers. In this environment we have defined several filesets exported to the same clients but with different LNETs, like:

      Client LNETs: tcp0, tcp1
      Server LNETs: tcp10, tcp11

      The Lustre routers connect the LNETs in the following way: tcp0 <> tcp10, tcp1 <> tcp11

      • Fileset data1: ranges=<client_ip>@tcp0
      • Fileset data2: ranges=<client_ip>@tcp1

      Now when we look at the 'network' option in mount.lustre:

             network=net
                    Limit  connections  from  the  client  to be on the network NID specified by 'net'.  ´net´ designates a single network NID, like 'o2ib2' or 'tcp1'.  This option can be useful in case of several Lustre client mount points on the same node, with each mount point using a different network. It is also interesting when running Lustre clients from containers, by restricting each container to a specific network.
      

      Since it's limiting the connections from the client we should use the following command to mount dataset2:

      mount -t lustre -o network=tcp1 <mgs_ip>@tcp11:/ /lustre/dataset2
      

      But that's not working because network needs to be the network on the server. This is working:

      mount -t lustre -o network=tcp11 <mgs_ip>@tcp11:/ /lustre/dataset2
      

      The semantics of the option is not respected.

      After discussing with Sebastien it looks like LU-11959 would be the patch for this.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-11977] [mount.lustre] Semantics of option 'network' in routed clients
            pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

            ok thanks!

            pjones Peter Jones added a comment - ok thanks!
            moreno Diego Moreno added a comment -

            Peter,

            That sounds good, just wanted to give the use case of LU-11959 since Sebastien asked for it. Maybe it would have been better to just add a comment there, sorry...

            moreno Diego Moreno added a comment - Peter, That sounds good, just wanted to give the use case of LU-11959 since Sebastien asked for it. Maybe it would have been better to just add a comment there, sorry...
            pjones Peter Jones added a comment -

            Diego

            It sounds like you agree that this request is a duplicate of LU-11959. Is there anything else that you are wanting from this ticket?

            Peter

            pjones Peter Jones added a comment - Diego It sounds like you agree that this request is a duplicate of LU-11959 . Is there anything else that you are wanting from this ticket? Peter

            People

              wc-triage WC Triage
              moreno Diego Moreno
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: