Oleg, thanks for your support m.
Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Michal Wesolowski wrote: >>> Yes, this is somewhat outdated. >>> 1.6.6 and above have posix advisory locking working (though >>> performance is not ideal, >>> especially if you have many clients doing a lot of locks on the >>> same file at the same >>> time). >> Do you mean file locking mechanism in Lustre doesn't perform as >> efficiently as on local system or is not yet optimized? Or is there >> any general impact on Lustre when at least one node has flock option >> turned on? For example additional burden on MDS or OSSes which >> results in lower IO/s performance. > > It is both not very optimized and slower than local system since it > needs to send network rpcs for locking (Except for the localflock > which is same speed as for local fs). > The performance impact would only be realized if not only you mount > with -o flock, but actually use posix locking, and mostly only in > those operations. > There is no impact on OSS operations at all. The only MDS impact is > there is now a bit more processing to handle those locking RPCs. > > Bye, > Oleg > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
