On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:16 +0200, Enrico Morelli wrote: > > Because we thought that Lustre was better than NFS
For certain workloads, yes, it is much better because... > and more scalable It is very much more scalable, but with such tremendous scalability there is a cost at the very low end (and a single server for MDT and OSTS is about as low as you can get on the scale) of the scale. > also in a simple configuration like our. For a single server serving both MDT and OSTs on a general file sharing workload, Lustre will not typically perform any better than NFS. There are exceptions to this generalization for certain corner cases, but in general it's pretty accurate. > Now, if I reduce the OSTs to one do you think that I can improve the > performance? Not really. You are still running into the same basic problem in that you are trying to serve up to completely different data sets (meta-data and file data) from the same device. If you could isolate your MDT to it's own device (i.e. a couple of small sata disks mirrored on their own sata buses is pretty cheap) you might see some improvement, but you might also run into other bottlenecks that a single server will impose, such as bus bandwidth, memory bandwidth, network bandwidth, etc. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
