Not to nitpick but is the 200GBytes/s number correct? That's pretty good for 19 OSTs. paul
Jeremy Mann wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
