Currently there are some challenges to this. First for LNet we have lnetctl and lctl for configuring the network. The nice thing about lnetctl it is light weight with no need of liblustreapi. This is not the case for lctl. So if you wanted a LNET only rpm it would only have to support lnetctl. Lastly setting LNet parameters via procfs/sysfs is handled only with lctl which again introduces the liblustreapi dependency. That I hope to resolve with LU-5030.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Rutman <> wrote:
What does the community think about splitting the LNET build out of Lustre as a separate set of (source and binary) RPMs?
This would make it easier/faster to build, install, and upgrade Lustre in existing installations without changing things we don't need to. It would also make it easier to re-use LNET in other projects, and make it easier for unusual users to maintain a customized LNET.
I have no idea how this might affect landing in mainstream kernel.
Thoughts / opinions?

Nathan Rutman · Principal Systems Architect
Seagate Technology
 · +1 503 877-9507 · PST

lwg mailing list