No, I haven't. By what means do you suggest analyzing the OP calls? Just an
strace? Or the server-size debug commands as outlined in
https://doc.lustre.org/lustre_manual.xhtml#dbdoclet.50438274_62472 ?
We also have jobstats enabled and are outputting these to a file for later
analysis. So if I submitted this test in a slurm job, I'd get stats like:
$ grep MDT /aerolab/admin/slurm/19435076_qsmoore
MDT:snapshot_time : 2021-01-09 05:29:59
MDT:setattr : 110
MDT:getattr : 20908
MDT:mkdir : 11
MDT:getxattr : 20424
MDT:mknod : 48
MDT:close : 19829
MDT:unlink : 9
MDT:open : 20188
$
But you must be referring to an external tool like strace so I could do the
same thing on both lustre and NFS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Di Domenico <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:48 AM
To: "Vicker, Darby J. (JSC-EG111)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.]"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [lustre-discuss] Tuning for metadata performance
have you run any analysis on the "A clone of these repo takes 550
seconds on lustre", where you track the exact OP calls on lustre to
see if it's a general slowness or if there is a specific OP that git
is abusing? i wonder if there's something specific that git is doing
that lustre is unhappy with versus continuing to poke at the hardware
or software tuning.
thought less likely, i'd also be curious if you have any
security/audit controls turned on on the clients. i have some silly
ones where i'm at that slow things down on lustre but not nfs because
of how the kernel treats the filesystem
i don't have any git repo's even close to that size so i can't perform
the same analysis where i'm at.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:45 PM Vicker, Darby J. (JSC-EG111)[Jacobs
Technology, Inc.] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sure. Its a custom configuration on commodity hardware, which is quite a
bit newer than the luster servers. The overall setup is a bit complicated to
support HA - two servers with an external JBOD with ZFS to manage the drives
and the file system. PCS to do the failover. But none of that is too relevant
in terms of performance so here are the hardware specs.
>
> Servers:
> 192 GB DDR4 2666 MHz ECC Memory
> 16 total physical cores (2x Intel Xeon Gold 6144 CPU @ 3.50GHz)
> LSI SAS Card (can't find exact model but very similar to the cards in the
lustre servers)
>
> JBOD:
> Supermicro 3.5"
> 24x 10TB 7200 RPM Seagate HDD's
>
> ZFS is used to configure the drives in a RAID10 with a zfs file system
built on the zpool. This is exported via NFS. The only NFS tuning we are
doing is to increase RPCNFSDCOUNT to 128 and export with async.
>
> So the HW configuration is overall fairly similar. This is another
reason I'm hopeful that we'd be able to get our lustre MD performance as good
or better than the NFS server given that the lustre MDS has SSD's and the NFS
server has HDD's.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lustre-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf
of Michael Di Domenico <[email protected]>
> Date: Monday, January 11, 2021 at 8:07 AM
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [lustre-discuss] Tuning for metadata performance
>
> perhaps i missed it somewhere, but in order to do a fair comparison
> can you detail the hardware/software behind the nfs server?
>
>
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
