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/LUDOC-273 Lustre Documentation <p>The default mkfs.lustre options changed to reflect changes in underlying ext4 filesystem (used by ldiskfs). </p> <p>In the SystemConfigurationUtilities section of the manual, the description of "mkfs.lustre" has been already updated. This change will update description of tunefs.lustre by modifying "mountfsoptions" line.</p> LUDOC-273

update description of command tunefs.lustre to match mkfs.lustre in section SystemConfigurationUtilities

Improvement Minor Closed Fixed Richard Henwood Chris Hunter e2fsprogs Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:37:33 +0000 Tue, 5 May 2015 15:28:46 +0000 Tue, 5 May 2015 15:28:46 +0000 0 3 <p>Thanks for this Chris.</p> <p>On the mailing list, you said you were 'slightly confounded by the "submit a patch" <br/> part'</p> <p>I'd like to improve our documentation - so can you advise where you got confounded?</p> <p>Richard Henwood (richard.henwood@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/14481" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/14481</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-273" title="update description of command tunefs.lustre to match mkfs.lustre in section SystemConfigurationUtilities" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LUDOC-273"><del>LUDOC-273</del></a> tune: update tunefs.lustre<br/> Project: doc/manual<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: 1<br/> Commit: f424186fa6cd242de14ff61ed3fae0a1585db819</p> <p>I've created this change of you diff, for review: <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/14481/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/14481/</a></p> <p>You do not appear to have an account on <a href="http://review.hpdd.intel.com" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.hpdd.intel.com</a> </p> <p>Please let me know when you do, and I'll add you as a reviewer.</p> <p>Hi Richard,<br/> Thanks for the follow-up.</p> <p>Your patch looks like my diff output plus useful comments. I created a gerrit account, do I need to sign-off on something ?</p> <p>I haven't groked all the instructions to push changes into gerrit for review. Appears to be a lot of setup work in order update two lines in the lustre manual. It was simpler to attach the patch to the jira ticket.</p> <p>Hi Richard,<br/> You last diff appears to have backed out changes. Was there a problem with my change ?</p> <p>chris hunter</p> <p>updated diff patch, <br/> remove extraneous semi-colon between xml tags</p> <p>Yes. It is a large overhead for a single line.</p> <p>I have considered the change over the weekend, and have concluded that it is better to include the redundant terms consistently, rather than drop them for &gt;2.5.0 Lustre. My main reason here is that the manual attempts to support all version of Lustre 2.x using text decorations. If the options are included as a requirement, text decorations that identify which version of Lustre the options are related to are not necessary.</p> <p>Thoughts?</p> <p>Hi Richard,<br/> If you look at the doc for mkfs.lustre command, this change was already made. My proposed change to tunefs.lustre entry attempts to be consistent with the previous doc change.</p> <p>Yes. Consistency is necessary to avoid confusion.</p> <p>My most recent change achieves consistency by adding in the redundant text to the place where it had been removed. The reason I chose this path is as the safest advice that covers users if they are using this manual for &lt;2.5 Lustre.</p> <p>My understanding is, if you have a pre 2.5.1 Lustre, these extra options are needed. If you have post 2.5.1, these options are redundant, and ignored. It works for both cases.</p> <p>Does that make sense to you?</p> <p>Doing this job correctly would add in a note to the user indicating these options are redundant post 2.5... which is maybe the equivalent of removing the options and having a clause if you are using pre-2.5 Lustre... however, we do have a 'since Lustre version X' decorator, but no 'prior to Lustre version X' decorator. For an example of a version decoration: <a href="https://build.hpdd.intel.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#dbdoclet.lfsmkdir" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://build.hpdd.intel.com/job/lustre-manual/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#dbdoclet.lfsmkdir</a></p> <p>updated diff patch to include "In Lustre 2.5" decorator for mkfs.lustre &amp; tunefs.lustre documentation. <br/> FWIW, added decorators breaks table formatting.</p> <p>Updated diff patch to include "In Lustre 2.5" decorator for mkfs.lustre &amp; tunefs.lustre documentation.</p> <p>Richard Henwood (richard.henwood@intel.com) merged in patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/14481/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/14481/</a><br/> Subject: <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LUDOC-273" title="update description of command tunefs.lustre to match mkfs.lustre in section SystemConfigurationUtilities" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LUDOC-273"><del>LUDOC-273</del></a> tune: update tunefs.lustre<br/> Project: doc/manual<br/> Branch: master<br/> Current Patch Set: <br/> Commit: 1b48b817725e29558102bb05b1b6afb081440f98</p> <p>Thanks for your patience (through seemingly small technicalities and my absence on vacation) Chris!</p> Development Rank 1|hzxawv: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807