From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Williams Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:15:07 -0500 Subject: [Lustre-devel] Query to understand the Lustre request/reply message In-Reply-To: References: <5A70DB00-9F04-47AF-A31C-01ADA3B87D5E@clusterstor.com> <17D943BA-FF0B-467F-8413-CB8C8184858C@clusterstor.com> <72D9946A-6452-4BC3-8C18-D2CA607D82DC@clusterstor.com> <20101013054233.GC1635@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20101013071507.GE1635@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:54:57AM +0300, Alexey Lyashkov wrote: > On Oct 13, 2010, at 08:42, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:35:13AM -0400, Vilobh Meshram wrote: > >> Thanks a lot Alexey for the reply.The information will be really useful. > >> > >> Since I am using 1.8.1.1 for my research project I will have to rely on the > >> old API.Since in the source tree prior to 2.0 we do not have a > >> mdt/mdt_handler.c and layout.c files will have to work with the low level > >> buffer management structures(ptlrpc_request,lustre_msg_v2,etc).Do you know a > >> place or a function which make use of the old API which I can use as a > >> reference to write the RPC for my task. > > > > > > Compared to the old thing, the new API is much closer to an IDL. It's a > > good thing. I strongly recommend that you use it, > > > main problem - lustre 1.8.1 don't have the new API :) You'll note that Vilobh did not provide any rationale for his/her choice of Lustre version. Without having any other good reason for picking 1.8 or 2.0, I strongly recommend 2.0. Now, perhaps Vilobh has a need to interop with an installed base of 1.8. That would be a good reason to do this in 1.8. But the work will have to be done for 2.0 as well. Nico --