discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bulk IO
(16MB RPC)
>From what I can see I think you just ran the wrong command (lctl list_param -R
>* ) or it doesn’t work as you expected on 2.12.3.
But llite params are sure there on a
ient/
gpgcheck=0
EOF
yum install lustre-client -y
reboot
From: "Moreno Diego (ID SIS)"
Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:55 AM
To: Pinkesh Valdria ,
"lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bu
performance:
lctl list_param -R llite | grep max_read_ahead
From: Pinkesh Valdria
Date: Friday, 13 December 2019 at 17:33
To: "Moreno Diego (ID SIS)" ,
"lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bulk IO
(16MB
From: "Moreno Diego (ID SIS)"
Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 at 2:55 AM
To: Pinkesh Valdria ,
"lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bulk IO
(16MB RPC)
>From what I can see they exist on my 2.12.3 client
nkesh Valdria ,
"lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bulk IO
(16MB RPC)
With that kind of degradation performance on read I would immediately think on
llite’s max_read_ahead parameters on the client. Specifically these 2
ustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org"
Subject: [lustre-discuss] Degraded read performance with Large Bulk IO (16MB
RPC)
I was expecting better or same read performance with Large Bulk IO (16MB RPC),
but I see degradation in performance. Do I need to tune any other parameter
to benefit from
I was expecting better or same read performance with Large Bulk IO (16MB RPC),
but I see degradation in performance. Do I need to tune any other parameter
to benefit from Large Bulk IO? Appreciate if I can get any pointers to
troubleshoot further.
Throughput before
Read: 2563 MB/s
