[Lustre-discuss] small file performance

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

    Since you did not subscribe to the bug 14010, you might be  
interested to know
    that I have a better patch there now that you might actually try  
and see how
    it affects your workloads. Of course this is not the final version  
yet, but
    I am pretty much concentrating on that area in the short term, so  
as luck has
    it, we might have something good soon.

Bye,
     Oleg
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Knister wrote:

> That looks about right. Is there an ETA on it? Sadly we may have to
> switch file systems if we can't get the performance of small i/o to at
> least NFS speeds.
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:44 -0500, Aaron Knister wrote:
>>> For whatever reason, searching my lustre mount (ls -R or find),
>>> compiling code and other operations involving lots of small files  
>>> are
>>> painfully slow. There is no load on the filesystem other than my
>>> various tests. I've disabled lnet debugging. Just to give you an  
>>> idea
>>> of how slow it is-- a ./configure of this particular code on a local
>>> filesystem takes less than a minute. On lustre it's been running for
>>> five minutes and is hardly half way through. An untar on the local
>>> filesystem takes .9 seconds while that same untar takes 12 seconds  
>>> to
>>> our lustre mount. Any ideas for improving this?
>>
>> Perhaps bug 14010 is relevant.
>>
>> b.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com
>> https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
> Aaron Knister
> Associate Systems Analyst
> Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
>
> (301) 595-7000
> aaron at iges.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at clusterfs.com
> https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss