[Lustre-devel] Queries regarding LDLM_ENQUEUE
bzzz.tomas at gmail.com
bzzz.tomas at gmail.com
Wed Oct 20 06:40:32 PDT 2010
On 10/20/10 5:30 PM, Eric Barton wrote:
> I do like the idea of a collective open, but I'm wondering if it can be
> implemented simply enough to be worth the effort. True, it avoids the O(n)
> load on the server of all the clients (re)populating their namespace
> caches, but it's only useful for parallel jobs - a scale-out NAS style
> workload can't benefit. Ultimately the O(n) will have to be replaced with
> something that scales O(log n) (e.g. with a fat tree of caching proxy
> servers).
in long-term I'd prefer proxy approach because this way we could improve
number of cases, including existing POSIX apps doing open, stat, etc.
>>>> another idea was to do whole path traversal on MDS within a single
>>>> RPC. bug that'd require amount of changes to llite and/or VFS and
>>>> keep MDS a bottleneck.
>
> That's an optimization rather than a scalability feature. How much does
> it complicate the code? I'd hate to see something new tricky and fragile
> complicate further development.
yes, this is an optimization. good thing here is that single client can
benefit a lot from this (replacing few RPCs with a single one). bad
thing is that it can be quite quite complicated on the client side (the
server side's part looks OK).
thanks, z
More information about the lustre-devel
mailing list