[Lustre-discuss] Question about "lfs find"

Bob Ball ball at umich.edu
Wed Oct 6 18:23:54 PDT 2010


  in my experience a single (or small number) of lfs_find with lots of 
obd arguments was faster than doing all of them individually.

go to lustre 1.8.4 (at least) and use lfs_migrate with your lfs_find 
list.  it wasn't REAL fast, but it was REAL reliable.

bob

On 10/6/2010 5:24 PM, Michael Barnes wrote:
> Lustre users,
>
> With lfs find, is it faster/better to do multiple lfs find's with one --obd or one lfs find with multiple --obd flags?
>
> I ask, because I made a mistake and ran a lone lfs with a single --obd argument on an OST that I didn't intend to drain, and the erroneous lfs find was *much* quicker at migrating data then the lfs find with multiple --obd flags pointing to different OSTs.
>
> Is this just a fluke or does lfs find work better with single --obd flag vs multiple ones?
>
> Before my mistake, I would assume that they would be the same or that a lfs find with multiple --obd flags would be faster, but it seems as though the evidence points to the contrary.
>
> Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of lfs find and what is the best way to migrate data off of multiple OST/OSSes?
>
> TIA,
>
> -mb
>
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------
> | Michael Barnes
> |
> | Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
> | Scientific Computing Group
> | 12000 Jefferson Ave.
> | Newport News, VA 23606
> | (757) 269-7634
> +-----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>
>



More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list