Hi Sébastien, Please see my answer in-line
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:48:54 +0100 Sébastien Buisson wrote: > If I understand correctly, you have two subnets. 192.168.110.0/24 is > for tcp0, and 192.168.111.0/24 is for tcp1. So you have to configure > two LNET networks on clients as well as servers. Could you please > give the lnet configuration you have setup on your OSSes and clients? This is one of OSSes: [root@oss1 ~]# lctl list_nids 192.168.110.21@tcp 192.168.111.21@tcp1 This is one of the clients: nid00030:~ # lctl list_nids 192.168.110.101@tcp 192.168.111.101@tcp1 > What you have to understand is that multirail LNET provides static > load balancing over several LNET networks. Because LNET is not able > to choose between several available routes, you have to restrict each > target to a specific network. This is the purpose of the '--network' > mkfs.lustre option. > > In your case, you would format half of the OSTs of each OSS with > '--network=tcp0', and the other half with '--network=tcp1'. This > would make clients use alternatively tcp0 or tcp1, depending on the > targets they communicate with. So if you write or read on all the > OSTs at the same time, you would aggregate performance of your two > 10GbE links, on the clients and the servers. Thank you for the clear explanation, I will try --network option distributed over OSTs and will get back. BTW, do you know if this setup has better performance than simply bonded NICs? > > And finally, we really do not care about LNET traffic with the MGS. > This is not what defines the networks that will be used for the > communication between the clients and the target servers. > Does this mean that it is enough to mount like this? mount.lustre 192.168.110.11@tcp0:/lustre /mnt/lustre Thank you, Alex. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
