Sudheendra,
You will get varied answers depending on who you ask. For us, we are
strong believers in ZFS. Of course, as a major contributor to
ZFS-on-Linux, we're heavily biased, but we believe the management
features (snapshots, etc) outweigh any performance deficiencies compared
to
I don't know the problem here, but you might want to look for
connectivity issues from the client to the OSS(s) that house those
two missing OSTs. I would image the lustre.log would show such
errors in bulk. I've seen where an IB subnet manager gets in a
weird state
Einar,
It's easier to upgrade the Lustre version than your OS, IMO. So, if you
want to run a RHEL/CentOS 8 derivative, then you may need to go with
2.14 on your servers for now and then upgrade to 2.15 (future LTS), once
that becomes stable. That's our current plan.
Cameron
On 11/22/21
One thing you can look at is running 'zpool iostat 1' (there are many
options) to monitor that ZFS is still doing I/O during that time gap.
With NVMe though, as Andreas said, I would expect that time gap to last
seconds to minutes, not hours.
On 4/19/22 02:16, Einar Næss Jensen wrote:
Thank
JC,
The message where it asks if the MGS is running is a pretty common error
that you'll see when something isn't right. There's not a lot of detail
in your message but first step is to make sure your OST device is
present on the OSS server. You mentioned remounting the RAID
directories; is
We (LLNL) were probably that Lab using pacemaker-remote, and we still
are as it generally works and is what we're used to. That said, on an
upcoming system, we may end up trying 2-node HA clusters due to the
vendor's preference. I'm not sure what specifics you're interested in,
but as you
I'll assume here you're referring to MPI-IO, which is not really a
"feature" but a way to perform parallel I/O using the message passing
interface (MPI) stack. There can also be different interpretations of
what MPI-IO exactly means: many HPC applications (and benchmarks such as
IOR) use MPI
if if it loses too many devices. And, the striped mirrors may see
better performance over Z2.
Regards
Thomas
On 1/9/24 20:57, Cameron Harr via lustre-discuss wrote:
Thomas,
We value management over performance and have knowingly left
performance on the floor in the name of standardization, robustness
?
I'm currently doing some tests, and the results favor software raid, in
particular when it comes to IOPS.
Regards
Thomas
On 1/5/24 19:55, Cameron Harr via lustre-discuss wrote:
This doesn't answer your question about ldiskfs on zvols, but we've been
running MDTs on ZFS on NVMe in production
This doesn't answer your question about ldiskfs on zvols, but we've been
running MDTs on ZFS on NVMe in production for a couple years (and on SAS
SSDs for many years prior). Our current production MDTs using NVMe
consist of one zpool/node made up of 3x 2-drive mirrors, but we've been
10 matches
Mail list logo
