[Lustre-discuss] (no subject)

[Andreas Dilger]

On May 11, 2009  15:44 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
> Does the "substantial block-level device throughput regression" exist
> in 2.6.18-128?

Note that "block-level device" is meaningless from the point of view
of Lustre clients.  If you changed the client software only then this
shouldn't be a factor.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dillow [mailto:dillowda at ornl.gov] 
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 2:20 PM
> To: Hayes, Robert N
> Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] (no subject)
> 
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:35 -0700, Hayes, Robert N wrote:
> > While performing a single copy, single client write/read test using
> > dd, we are finding that our Nehalem clients running 
> > 
> > 2.6.18-92.1.10.el5-lustre-1.6.5.1 
> > 
> > write about half the speed of our Nehalem clients running 
> > 
> > 2.6.18-53.1.13.el5_lustre.1.6.4.3 to three different lustre file
> > systems.
> 
> We've seen a fairly substantial block-level device throughput regression
> going from -53 to -92 without involving Lustre, but I've not yet had
> time to run down the changes to see what could be causing it.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Dillow
> National Center for Computational Science
> Oak Ridge National Laboratory
> (865) 241-6602 office
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.