On 2010-06-24, at 00:54, Maxence Dunnewind wrote: > I'm using lustre 1.8.3 with a SSI (single system image). I'm trying to make > some compilation bench. My process is simple : > download 2.6.34 kernel > extract it on a lustre mount > make defconfig > time make -j X > > for reference, if I use only one client, with a local filesystem, it takes > about 3min50. The same client alone with a mounted lustre partition (with > local lock) takes more than 10 minutes. > > Using lustre on my SSI, I have these results : > -j 4 : 9min37 > -j 8 : 5min34 > -j 12 : 4min42 > -j 16 : 4min19 > > so even with 16 process (on 4 nodes), I can't compile faster than 1 local > node ... > I tried > http://blogs.sun.com/atulvid/entry/improving_performance_of_small_files > but it does not change anything. > > My lustre setup : > 1 mgs + mds > 3 OST > > Is there some other way to optimize it or is lustre just bad on multiple > access for small file ?
I don't think it is realistic to expect that a cache-coherent distributed filesystem that can scale to 10000's of clients is also performing as fast as a single client on a local filesystem. That Lustre is completing in 4:19 vs. 3:50 on the local filesystem (12% slower) is a pretty good result for Lustre, I think. We're of course working on improving Lustre performance for this kind of situation, but it isn't really a priority for most of our customers. I don't want to discourage you from using Lustre, and of course I'd also like Lustre to be faster than even the local filesystem but you should also look at the other benefits. A more fair test might be to do the local-node compile, and then copy the kernel and all the modules to each of the client nodes, since Lustre is also making the output files available on all of the clients. It is also worthwhile (if you have the time) to determine whether your "make -j 16" is CPU bound, or IO bound on the local filesystem? You might try pre-staging all of the input files on the client nodes, and have the compiler output go into a separate directory (not sure if this is possible with linux kernel compiles) so that the output files created during the run do not invalidate the directory caches. For comparison, on the same two systems (local fs vs. Lustre) try writing 32*10GB files from 32 clients (use rsh or NFS or whatever you want to transport data from clients to local filesystem) and see how performance compares. :-) Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Technical Lead Oracle Corporation Canada Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
