https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1422 Lustre <p>In the early days of Lustre the cray Catamount system was supported. This required special blocks of code but today CRAY system use a standard Linux system so these special blocks of code are not only might not be needed but could hind performance on the CRAY platform. Such was the case recently uncoverd while doing IR testing. This ticket will be a peer view of what is and is not needed anymore.</p> Cray nodes running Lustre LU-1422

Cleanup Lustre cray specific code

Improvement Minor Resolved Fixed Zhenyu Xu James A Simmons Fri, 18 May 2012 12:30:50 +0000 Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:42:22 +0000 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:10:05 +0000 Lustre 2.3.0 Lustre 2.3.0 Lustre 2.6.0 0 4 <p>Thank you, James.</p> <p>These special sections are conditional on CRAY_XT3. However, some of those changes were specific to CRAY Catamount using liblustre, and others not. Each CRAY_XT3 section should be examined as James suggested, and some will stay and some might go. However, the CRAY_XT3 moniker is outdated and leads to confusion so it should change in the very least. Also, for the changes that stay, we should be clear whether they are for Cray Lustre on Linux or Catamount (EOL/deprecated). We may choose to delete Catamount specifics entirely even if they were correct/useful because it is no longer used or supported.</p> <p>Perhaps we should just drop the XT3 moniker?</p> <p><a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,2835" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,2835</a></p> <p>Bobijam</p> <p>Could you please review this suggested change?</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>I wrote, "We may choose to delete Catamount specifics entirely even if they were correct/useful because it is no longer used or supported." After more consideration, Cray is OK with removing the Catamount support.</p> <p>From looking at the code the CRAY_XT3 is specific to Catamount even for the sea star case. In that case it is most likely safe to removal all the CRAY_XT3 code.</p> <p>Also Cory should we remove the ulnd for sea star?</p> <p>Cray won't be maintaining the SeaStar LNDs any longer. So, we would have no objection to removing it.</p> <p>FYI: James also has <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,3064" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,3064</a> up for review to remove Cray Catamount support (CRAY_XT3 and the portals ulnd)</p> <p>Thanks for the review. Will fix in next addition. I'm going to wait to update the patch due to the LNET rewrite going on in the master branch right now. Once <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-56" title="Finish SMP scalability work" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-56"><del>LU-56</del></a> is done merging I will update the patch.</p> <p>Please reopen ticket if more work is needed.</p> <p>James Simmons posted <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7469" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/7469</a>. Cray won't be maintaining the ptllnd, so we can approve its removal. However, is there something to be said about keeping the ptllnd as a reference Portals API implementation?</p> Development Rank 1|hzv61b: Rank (Obsolete) 4512