[Lustre-discuss] high IOPS
Craig.Tierney at noaa.gov
Wed Dec 2 11:15:56 PST 2009
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2009-12-02, at 09:20, Francois Chassaing wrote:
>> I have a big fundamental question :
>> if the load that I'll put on the FS is more IOPS-intensive than
>> throughput-intensive (because I'll access lots of medium-sized files
>> ~5 MB from a small number of clients), should I better go Lustre or
>> PVFS2 ?
> I don't think PVFS2 is necessarily better at IOPS than Lustre. This
> is mostly dependent upon the storage configuration.
>> Also, if the main load is IOPS, shouldn't I oversize MDS/MDT in
>> terms of CPU/RAM and storage perf (ie. : max of 15K SAS RAID10
>> spindles possible) ?
> The Lustre MDS/MDT is used only at file lookup/open/close, but is not
> involved during actual IO operations. Still, this means in your case
> that the MDS is getting 2 RPCs (open + close, which can be done
> asynchronously in memory) for every 5 OST RPCs (5MB read/write, which
> happen synchronously), so the MDS will definitely need to scale but
> not necessarily at 2/5 of the total OST size.
> Typical numbers for a high-end MDT node (16-core, 64GB of RAM, DDR IB)
> is about 8-10k creates/sec, up to 20k lookups/sec from many clients.
> Depending on the number of files you are planning to have in the
> filesystem, I would suggest SSDs for the MDT filesystem, especially if
> you have a large working set and are doing read-mostly access.
Has anyone reported results of an SSD based MDT?
>> on the budget side, may I use asynchronous DRBD to mirror MDT
>> (internal storage), or should I only got a good shared storage
>> (direct or iscsi) ?
> Some people on this list have used DRBD, but we haven't tested it
> ourselves. I _suspect_ (though have not necessarily tested this) that
> if you are using DRBD it would be possible to have lower-performance
> storage on the backup server without significantly impacting the
> primary server performance, if you are willing to run slower in the
> rare case when you are failed-over to the backup.
>> Today I'm leaning towards Lustre, because I've tested it against
>> glusterfs, and gluster performed little less good than lustre but
>> poorly failed the bonnie++ create/delete tests. Also I didn't gave a
>> shot at PVFS2 yet...
> Cheers, Andreas
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
Craig Tierney (craig.tierney at noaa.gov)
More information about the lustre-discuss