It’s also worth noting that if you have small OSTs it’s much easier to bump
into a full OST situation. And specifically, if you singly stripe a file the
file size is limited by the size of the OST.
-Cory
--
On 10/22/17, 1:39 PM, "lustre-discuss on behalf of Thomas Roth"
<lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org on behalf of t.r...@gsi.de> wrote:
Hi Patrick,
thanks for the clarification. One thing less to worry about.
Since our users mainly do small file I/O, it would seem that the random I/O
iops numbers are the relevant quantity -and there the smaller OSTs are the
fast ones ;-)
Cheers
Thomas
On 22.10.2017 20:21, Patrick Farrell wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> This is likely a reflection of an older issue, since resolved. For a
long time, Lustre reserved max_rpcs_in_flight*max_pages_per_rpc for each OST
(on the client). This was a huge memory commitment in larger setups, but was
resolved a few versions back, and now per OST memory usage on the client is
pretty trivial when the client isn’t doing I/o to that OST. The main arguments
against large OST counts are probably the pain of managing larger numbers of
them, and individual OSTs being slow (because they use fewer disks), requiring
users to stripe files more widely to see the benefit. This is both an
administrative burden for users and uses more space on the metadata server to
track the file layouts.
>
> But if your MDT is large and your users amenable to thinking about that
(or you set a good default striping policy - progressive file layouts from 2.10
are wonderful for this), then it’s probably fine. The largest OST counts I am
aware of are in the low thousands.
>
> Ah, one more thing - clients must ping every OST periodically if they
haven’t otherwise contacted it within the required interval. This can
contribute to network traffic and CPU noise/jitter on the clients. I don’t
have a good sense of how serious this is in practice, but I know some larger
sites worry about it.
>
> - Patrick
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org> on behalf
of Thomas Roth <t.r...@gsi.de>
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 9:04:35 AM
> To: Lustre Discuss
> Subject: [lustre-discuss] ZFS-OST layout, number of OSTs
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have done some "fio" benchmarking, amongst other things to test the
proposition that to get more iops, the number of disks per raidz should be less.
> I was happy I could reproduce that: one server with 30 disks in one
raidz2 (=one zpool = one OST) is indeed slower than one with 30 disks in three
> raidz2 (one zpool, one OST).
> I ran fio also on a third server were the 30 disks make up 3 raidz2 = 3
zpools = 3 OSTs, that one is faster still.
>
> Now I seem to remember a warning not to have too many OSTs in one Lustre,
because each OST eats some memory on the client. I haven't found that
> reference, and I would like to ask what the critical numbers might be?
How much RAM are we talking about? Is there any other "wise" limit on the OST
> number?
> Currently our clients are equipped with 128 or 256 GB RAM. We have 550
OSTs in the system, but the next cluster could easily grow much larger here if
> we stick to the small OSTs.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Roth
Department: HPC
Location: SB3 1.262
Phone: +49-6159-71 1453 Fax: +49-6159-71 2986
GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH
Planckstraße 1
64291 Darmstadt
www.gsi.de
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Darmstadt
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Darmstadt, HRB 1528
Geschäftsführung: Professor Dr. Paolo Giubellino
Ursula Weyrich
Jörg Blaurock
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: St Dr. Georg Schütte
Stellvertreter: Ministerialdirigent Dr. Rolf Bernhardt
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
