On May 11, 2009 15:44 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote: > Does the "substantial block-level device throughput regression" exist > in 2.6.18-128?
Note that "block-level device" is meaningless from the point of view of Lustre clients. If you changed the client software only then this shouldn't be a factor. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Dillow [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM > To: Hayes, Robert N > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] (no subject) > > On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:35 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote: > > While performing a single copy, single client write/read test using > > dd, we are finding that our Nehalem clients running > > > > 2.6.18-92.1.10.el5-lustre-1.6.5.1 > > > > write about half the speed of our Nehalem clients running > > > > 2.6.18-53.1.13.el5_lustre.1.6.4.3 to three different lustre file > > systems. > > We've seen a fairly substantial block-level device throughput regression > going from -53 to -92 without involving Lustre, but I've not yet had > time to run down the changes to see what could be causing it. > > -- > Dave Dillow > National Center for Computational Science > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > (865) 241-6602 office > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
