[Lustre-devel] LustreFS performance
Andreas Dilger
adilger at sun.com
Mon Mar 2 12:45:01 PST 2009
On Mar 02, 2009 20:04 +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
> RAM: enough to have a tmpfs for MDS;
Note that strictly speaking we need to use ldiskfs on a ramdisk, not
tmpfs, because we don't have an fsfilt_tmpfs.
> Q: which raid?
> A: raid5, as it seems to be the most popular.
I would propose:
- for MDT it needs to be RAID-1+0, because of small, random IO sizes
- for OST it needs to be RAID-6, because of double-failure risk (see
Lustre Manual "RAID" section for discussion)
> **** Statistics ****
>
> During all the tests the following is supposed to be running on all
> the servers:
> 1) vmstat
> 2) iostat, if there is some disk activity.
> smth else?
I would propose either LLNL's LMT or HP's collectl, which both also
collect Lustre stats. Those both provide more information than the
above, and having the IO/CPU load correlated to Lustre RPC counts is
very useful.
> MDST3
>
> Q: do we want to test stat(2) with other then tmpfs disk on OST?
> what journal should it have if so?
I would be quite interested in the performance numbers from just
the ramdisk MDT+OST, to see what the upper limit of the protocol
and network are.
> 9. find
> Q: despite the fact we currently have a large downgrade with
> "find -f type", do we want to have this test in the general test set?
Some of that performance loss should have been fixed recently. We
should continue to test it.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
More information about the lustre-devel
mailing list