WARNING: This is the _old_ Lustre wiki, and it is in the process of being retired. The information found here is all likely to be out of date. Please search the new wiki for more up to date information.
Difference between revisions of "Windows Native Client"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
= Windows/Native Client Project Information =
== Links ==
== Links ==
Revision as of 12:37, 16 December 2009
Windows/Lustre™ Native Client Project Information
- Working Linux Lustre cluster (vmware or otherwise) - Michael MacDonald to assist asap? - Mounting on windows – requires Matt’s branch to work - File Browsing - File I/O - Integrate with CFS testing - Performance
OSR has a reasonable idea how to get skeleton code together for 1-3, but needs a review of lock revocation and metadata caches before finalizing 3, from someone like Oleg. I expect some assistance from Matt suggesting skeletons etc can help tremendously. Nikita should help architect a skeleton for the file I/O architecture.
Dan Root – project manager Tony Mason – design lead, working with Mark Mark Cariddi - developer
Bryon Neitzel - Project Manager Matt – owns libraries, compiler issues, LNET Nikita – file I/O guidance Alex - metadata API Oleg ? – Metadata guidance Eeb – control landing from the branch Braam / Eeb – architecture, abstractions
- all risks are fairly likely and highly disruptive
Loss of CFS attention – CFS project manager Poorly defined details – CFS documentation team Out of date libraries – Matt Wu Compiler issues – Matt Wu Code base continues to move – CFS development team Getting it right vs working – Nikita / Oleg Landing into 2.0 – Barton
OSR will work on skeletons / prototypes and request review of these when ready.
Frequent status reports with risk update. OSR agreed to weekly status reports and bi-weekly conference calls.
Peter Braam and Tony were not yet concerned about the budget situation, but the original estimates were too optimistic, in particular because CFS made no progress between October 2007 and April 2008.
Windows Client Meeting, Monday, 2008-05-09
Eric Barton Peter Bojanic Nikita Danilov Tony Mason Bryon Neitzel Matt Wu Mark Cariddi
1. Progress by Mark - need help building any Lustre component? ldiskfs or LNET? 2. What is next step for OSR after Lustre builds? Recommendation is to use existing metadata APIs 3. Progress from Matt Wu on compilers and macro issues 4. Status on MD apis from Alex 5. Review developer questions from Google Doc
1. Mark will get back to the build process next week. Matt's note on how to build should help. 2. OSR will start to work on existing metadata api's. 3. Matt will finish compiling task next week. The data api has a low level description that has been published to the mailing list.
4. The MD api hasn't been started. The MD api definition should work for all porting targets. Could OSR possibly help with the definition?
- OSR will need to ask questions regarding the semantic differences between Windows and Linux.
- OSR would like to have something re: metadata in about a month. Have been waiting for work product to show up. Should OSR start with the data api since these are mostly done? Need to start with metadata. The biggest thing OSR needs is Matt's work, basic network infrastructure, ptlrpc, LOV, OSC, MDC, MGC, etc in order to actually run something.
- OSR could be scoping out design, writing initial code to talk to MGS to get file system info, etc, while waiting for more components to be complete.
- Just getting nw connection set up will be first step.
- Must allow nw address of the mgs to change.
- store nw addresses as strings, not binary. format will change down the road.
- first milestone is to show directory browsing from Windows.
- When will the client be exposed to lock callbacks? This isn't a concern for the first milestone.
- Need to find a balance between a fixed price contract and a cost contract. Hard to estimate in absolute terms how long this will take.
- Tony thinks the amount of time won't vary too much, but the elapsed time will depend on how quickly Sun can deliver dependent components and api's
- Some re-work will be required when the final MD api is finished.
- An important thing is the locking interaction and the required number of rpc's to perform required Windows actions.
Windows Client Meeting, Monday, 2008-04-21.
Eric Barton Peter Bojanic Nikita Danilov Alex Tomas Matt Wu Bryon Neitzel
A Google Document was created for questions from the development staff for Braam's meeting with OSR this week. http://docs.google.com/a/lustre.org/Doc?id=d8jgmdp_20fpxwdgb. Alex and Nikita to document questions by Wednesday.
A branch has been created for use by OSR. b_winnt_port branch of lustre-core module (sharing HEAD lnet so far)
Comments from the Meeting:
- eeb: need a clean interface that porting will use.
- eeb: need metadata interface that doesn't expose internal stuff to another platform
- Matt to continue documentation, compile issues, and porting all client components that are common to other platforms (LOV, LDLM, OSC, MDC, LVM, PTLRPC, etc) Eric would like to be involved before too much design work is done.
- Matt has drafted a doc titled gcc_vc.pdf that describes the differences between the gcc and vc compilers, and some proposed solutions. This was sent to Dan Root, et al, on Jan 20. Eric to provide feedback.
- Alex wants to learn more about Windows. understand simple use cases.
- would OSR implement the file handle stuff? (do we need to export an MD FID lookup?)
- Get de-brief from Braam on meeting, have him give direction to Alex on md api
- Alex to send a list of questions to braam
- Put a question in doc about what OSR can be doing?
- Need an OSR work plan as a result of Braam meeting, so the Lustre team knows all the dependencies and dates on items we're responsible for.
- Do we need an LNET branch? Give them a snapshot of all of the sources. Otherwise we don't know what they're implementing to. Nikita says current client IO can't be used for implementation, as it's not far enough along yet.
- Provide branch names: b_winnt _port, HEAD version of LNET. OSR will need their own private branch when they start to commit code. Need to sort out branch situation when OSR is ready to check in code. Their code cannot live in a pubic branch.