Hello,
Miss_inside_window vs hit is about 3 vs 2, indeed too high. It probably
means a lot of pages is read in by read-ahead, but later evicted before
it is really being accessed.
So the patch in bug17197 probably fix this problem, and which will be
included in 1.8.2.
Thanks
WangDi
Alvaro
no, for the time being I'm stuck with this version...
Regards,
Alvaro.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Oleg Drokin oleg.dro...@sun.com wrote:
Hello!
Any chance you can use more modern release like 1.8.1? There was a number
of bugs fixed including some readahead-logic fixes that could
they run on different physical nodes and access the ost via 4x infiniband.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM, di wang di.w...@sun.com wrote:
Alvaro Aguilera wrote:
thanks for the hint, but unfortunately I can't make any updates to the
cluster...
Do you think both of the problems I
hello,
Alvaro Aguilera wrote:
they run on different physical nodes and access the ost via 4x infiniband.
I never heard such problems, if they on different nodes. Client memory?
Can you post read-ahead stats (before and after the test) here by
lctl get_param llite.*.read_ahead_stats
But
Hello,
as a project for college I'm doing a behavioral comparison between Lustre
and CXFS when dealing with simple strided files using POSIX semantics. On
one of the tests, each participating process reads 16 chunks of data with a
size of 32MB each, from a common, strided file using the following
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 23:52 +0200, Alvaro Aguilera wrote:
I'm facing the following problem: when this code is run in parallel
the read operations on certain processes start to need more and more
time to complete. I attached a graphical trace of this, when using
only 2 processes.
Just a
Hello!
Any chance you can use more modern release like 1.8.1? There was a
number of bugs fixed including some readahead-logic fixes that could
impede read performance.
Bye,
Oleg
On Aug 20, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Aguilera wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. I was using the
Hello,
You may see bug 17197 and try to apply this patch
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=25062 to your lustre src.
Or you can wait 1.8.2.
Thanks
Wangdi
Alvaro Aguilera wrote:
Hello,
as a project for college I'm doing a behavioral comparison between
Lustre and CXFS when
