[Lustre-discuss] ldiskfs performance vs. XFS performance
Johann Lombardi
johann.lombardi at oracle.com
Mon Oct 18 09:40:46 PDT 2010
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 01:58:40PM +0200, Michael Kluge wrote:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=$RAM_DEV bs=1M count=1000
> mke2fs -O journal_dev -b 4096 $RAM_DEV
>
> mkfs.lustre --device-size=$((7*1024*1024*1024)) --ost --fsname=luram
> --mgsnode=$MDS_NID --mkfsoptions="-E stride=32,stripe-width=256 -b 4096
> -j -J device=$RAM_DEV" /dev/disk/by-path/...
>
> mount -t ldiskfs /dev/disk/by-path/... /mnt/ost_1
In fact, Lustre uses additional mount options (see "Persistent mount opts" in tunefs.lustre output).
If your ldiskfs module is based on ext3, you should add the extents and mballoc options which are known to improve performance.
HTH
Cheers,
Johann
More information about the lustre-discuss
mailing list