In general Lustre is very stable. Metadata performance feels okay and we only have one mdt on 6 SSDs (3-way mirror).
We had another issue that also are ZIL related: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/2016-May/013500.html Cheers, Hans Henrik On 08-05-2018 21:21, Riccardo Veraldi wrote: > I Was considering Lustre for my home dirs but I am quite frightened to > see you have problems. > How is the overall performance are you happy ? > thanks > > Rick > > > On 5/8/18 5:56 AM, Hans Henrik Happe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We had some users experiencing slow vim (the editor) updates on our >> Lustre homedirs. Turns out vim is doing some fsyncs that does not play >> well with a loaded ZFS OST. >> >> We tried testing with ioping, which does synced writes (like dd with >> conv=fdatasync). When an OST is loaded (i.e. scrubbing) the ioping time >> is multiple seconds (5-10). Without load we get 100-300ms, which still >> is far from what a ZFS fs can deliver. >> >> To test if a ZFS fs also would be affected we created a test fs on the >> OST pool and ran ioping*. With or without a scrub running, the ping >> times averaged at around 40ms. >> >> Has anyone else experienced this? Can it be helped? >> >> Cheers, >> Hans Henrik >> >> * Used -WWW because ioping -W runs on an unlinked file and ZFS will not >> sync those to disk. >> _______________________________________________ >> lustre-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org > > _______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
