[Lustre-discuss] OSSes on dual IOH motherboards

Mark Nelson mark at msi.umn.edu
Sat Jun 4 05:31:30 PDT 2011

Thanks Andreas and Kevin for the excellent information.  Sounds like the 
Bull presentation is exactly what I'm after.  I wonder if in really bad 
situations with lots of bidirectional traffic if you could even end up 
dropping below 3GB/s (ie single QDR limit).  Seems like this could 
become a pretty important topic as network interconnect speeds improve.


On 6/2/11 8:49 PM, Kevin Van Maren wrote:
> Mark,
> In addition to thread pinning, see also Bug 22078, which allows a 
> different network interface to be used for different OSTs on the same 
> server: a single IB interface is not enough to saturate one IOH, let 
> alone multiple.
> Normally all the threads are in a shared pool, where any thread can 
> service any incoming request for any OST.
> The most common server configuration is probably still dual-socket 
> single IOH.
> Kevin
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> Look for the Bull NUMIOA presentation from the recent LUG. The short 
>> story is that OST thread pinning is critical to getting good 
>> performance.  The numbers are something like 3.6GB/s without, and 6.0 
>> GB/s with thread affinity.
>> Cheers, Andreas
>> On 2011-06-02, at 7:23 PM, Mark Nelson <mark at msi.umn.edu> wrote:
>>> Hi List,
>>> I was wondering if anyone here has looked at the performance 
>>> characteristics of lustre OSSes on dual tylersburg motherboards with 
>>> raid controllers split up onto separate IO hubs.  I imagine that 
>>> without proper pinning of service threads to the right CPUs/IOH and 
>>> memory pools this could cause some nasty QPI contention.  Is this 
>>> actually a problem in practice?  Is it possible to pin service 
>>> threads in a reasonable way based on which OST is involved?  Anyone 
>>> doing this on purpose to try and gain more overall PCIE bandwidth?
>>> I imagine that in general it's probably best to stick with a single 
>>> socket single IOH OSS.  No pinning to worry about, very direct QPI 
>>> setup, consistent performance characteristics, etc.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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