I have to agree with Brian, the scalability factor is where Lustre really shines. One more thing to add would be to try different stripe sizes. Each application has its own optimal stripe size so experiment with different stripes.
On our 19 dual channel bonded GigE OSTs, we see sustained speeds of 200 GB/s when reading the NCBI databases. Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 12:17 +0000, Iain Grant wrote: > >> Now to be honest I am not seeing any difference in Lustre compared >> with NFS > > You won't. Lustre's shining point is not that it's faster than NFS > given a single server and single disk, but rather that it scales > incredibly well. > > Try adding more disks and (when you max out the bandwidth of that single > machine's disk or network -- whichever comes first) add a second (and > third and fourth, etc.) OSS. Then try some benchmarks. > > When you have maxed out the network bandwidth between your client and > the Lustre servers, add a second and third, etc. clients and try a > collective benchmark across all of the clients. > > This is where Lustre shines. > > b. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > -- Jeremy Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Texas Health Science Center Bioinformatics Core Facility http://www.bioinformatics.uthscsa.edu Phone: (210) 567-2672 _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
