[Lustre-discuss] Lustre Performance

[Pauln]

Not to nitpick but is the 200GBytes/s number correct?  That's pretty 
good for 19 OSTs.
paul

Jeremy Mann wrote:
> I have to agree with Brian, the scalability factor is where Lustre really
> shines. One more thing to add would be to try different stripe sizes. Each
> application has its own optimal stripe size so experiment with different
> stripes.
>
> On our 19 dual channel bonded GigE OSTs, we see sustained speeds of 200
> GB/s when reading the NCBI databases.
>
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 12:17 +0000, Iain Grant wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Now to be honest I am not seeing any difference in Lustre compared
>>> with NFS
>>>       
>> You won't.  Lustre's shining point is not that it's faster than NFS
>> given a single server and single disk, but rather that it scales
>> incredibly well.
>>
>> Try adding more disks and (when you max out the bandwidth of that single
>> machine's disk or network -- whichever comes first) add a second (and
>> third and fourth, etc.) OSS.  Then try some benchmarks.
>>
>> When you have maxed out the network bandwidth between your client and
>> the Lustre servers, add a second and third, etc. clients and try a
>> collective benchmark across all of the clients.
>>
>> This is where Lustre shines.
>>
>> b.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com
>> https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>>
>>     
>
>
>