I do not have always big file, I Also have small files on Lustre, so I found out in my scenario that the default 128K record size
fits my needs better.
In real life I do not expect to have direct I/O . But before putting it in production I Was testing it and the Direct I/O performances were far lower than other similar lustre partitions with ldiskfs.



On 17/10/16 08:59, PGabriele wrote:
you can have a better understanding of the gap from this presentation: ZFS metadata performance improvements <http://www.eofs.eu/_media/events/lad16/02_zfs_md_performance_improvements_zhuravlev.pdf>

On 14 October 2016 at 08:42, Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dil...@intel.com <mailto:andreas.dil...@intel.com>> wrote:

    On Oct 13, 2016 19:02, Riccardo Veraldi
    <riccardo.vera...@cnaf.infn.it
    <mailto:riccardo.vera...@cnaf.infn.it>> wrote:
    >
    > Hello,
    > will the lustre 2.9.0 rpm be released on the Intel site ?
    > Also the latest rpm for zfsonlinux  available is 0.6.5.8

    The Lustre 2.9.0 packages will be released, when the release is
    complete.
    You are welcome to test the pre-release version from Git, if you are
    interested.

    You are also correct that the ZoL 0.7.0 release is not yet available.
    There are still improvements when using ZoL 0.6.5.8, but some of these
    patches only made it into 0.7.0.

    Cheers, Andreas

    > On 13/10/16 11:16, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
    >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:32, E.S. Rosenberg
    <esr+lus...@mail.hebrew.edu <mailto:esr%2blus...@mail.hebrew.edu>>
    wrote:
    >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Xiong, Jinshan
    <jinshan.xi...@intel.com <mailto:jinshan.xi...@intel.com>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Phill Harvey-Smith
    <p.harvey-sm...@warwick.ac.uk
    <mailto:p.harvey-sm...@warwick.ac.uk>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Having tested a simple setup for lustre / zfs, I'd like to
    try and
    >>>>> replicate on the test system what we currently have on the
    production
    >>>>> system, which uses a much older version of lustre (2.0 IIRC).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Currently we have a combined mgs / mds node and a single oss
    node.
    >>>>> we have 3 filesystems : home, storage and scratch.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The MGS/MDS node currently has the mgs on a seperate block
    device and
    >>>>> the 3 mds on a combined lvm volume.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The OSS has an ost each (on a separate disks) for scratch
    and home
    >>>>> and two ost for storage.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If we migrate this setup to a ZFS based one, will I need to
    create a
    >>>>> separate zpool for each mdt / mgt / oss  or will I be able
    to create
    >>>>> a single zpool and split it up between the individual mdt /
    oss blocks,
    >>>>> if so how do I tell each filesystem how big it should be?
    >>>> We strongly recommend to create separate ZFS pools for OSTs,
    otherwise grant, which is a Lustre internal space reserve
    algorithm, won’t work properly.
    >>>>
    >>>> It’s possible to create a single zpool for MDTs and MGS, and
    you can use ‘zfs set reservation=<space> <target>’ to reserve
    spaces for different targets.
    >>> I thought ZFS was only recommended for OSTs and not for MDTs/MGS?
    >> The MGT/MDT can definitely be on ZFS.  The performance of ZFS
    has been
    >> trailing behind that of ldiskfs, but we've made significant
    performance
    >> improvements with Lustre 2.9 and ZFS 0.7.0. Many people use ZFS
    for the
    >> MDT backend because of the checksums and integrated JBOD
    management, as
    >> well as the ability to create snapshots, data compression, etc.
    >>
    >> Cheers, Andreas
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> lustre-discuss mailing list
    >> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
    <mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org>
    >> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
    <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>
    >>
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > lustre-discuss mailing list
    > lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
    <mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org>
    > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
    <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>

    _______________________________________________
    lustre-discuss mailing list
    lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
    <mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org>
    http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
    <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>




--
www: http://paciucci.blogspot.com


_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Reply via email to