[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.
Mark
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