[lustre-discuss] problem getting high performance output to single file

[Jeff Johnson]

David,

What interconnect are you using for Lustre? ( IB/o2ib [fdr,qdr,ddr], 
Ethernet/tcp [40GbE,10Gbe,1GbE] ). You can run 'lctl list_nids' and see 
what protocol lnet is binding to, then look at that interface for the 
specific type.

Also, do you know anything about the server side of your Lustre FS? What 
make/model of block devices are used in OSTs?

--Jeff


On 5/19/15 9:05 AM, Schneider, David A. wrote:
> Thanks, for the client, where I am running from, I have
>
> $ cat /proc/fs/lustre/version
> lustre: 2.1.6
> kernel: patchless_client
> build:  jenkins--PRISTINE-2.6.18-348.4.1.el5
>
>
> best,
>
> David Schneider
> ________________________________________
> From: Patrick Farrell [paf at cray.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:03 AM
> To: Schneider, David A.; John Bauer; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] problem getting high performance output to single file
>
> For the clients, cat /proc/fs/lustre/version
>
> For the servers, it¹s the same, but presumably you don¹t have access.
>
> On 5/19/15, 11:01 AM, "Schneider, David A." <davidsch at slac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My first test was just to do the for loop where I allocate a 4MB buffer,
>> initialize it, and delete it. That program ran at about 6GB/sec. Once I
>> write to a file, I drop down to 370mb/sec. Our top performance for I/O to
>> one file has been about 400 mb/sec.
>>
>> For this question: Which versions are you using in servers and clients?
>> I don't know what command to determine this, I suspect it is older since
>> we are on red hat 5. I will ask.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> David Schneider
>> ________________________________________
>> From: lustre-discuss [lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] on behalf
>> of John Bauer [bauerj at iodoctors.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:52 AM
>> To: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] problem getting high performance output to
>> single file
>>
>> David
>>
>> You note that you write a 6GB file.  I suspect that your Linux systems
>> have significantly more memory than 6GB meaning your file will end being
>> cached in the system buffers.  It wont matter how many OSTs you use as
>> you probably are not measuring the speed to the OST's, but rather, you
>> are measuring the memory copy speed.
>> What transfer rate are you seeing?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 5/19/2015 10:40 AM, Schneider, David A. wrote:
>>> I am trying to get good performance with parallel writing to one file
>>> through MPI. Our cluster has high performance when I write to separate
>>> files, but when I use one file - I see very little performance increase.
>>>
>>> As I understand, our cluster defaults to use one OST per file. There
>>> are many OST's though, which is how we get good performance when writing
>>> to multiple files. I have been using the command
>>>
>>>    lfs setstripe
>>>
>>> to change the stripe count and block size. I can see that this works,
>>> when I do lfs getstripe, I see the output file is striped, but I'm
>>> getting very little I/O performance when I create the striped file.
>>>
>>> When working from hdf5 and mpi, I have seen a number of references
>>> about tuning parameters, I haven't dug into this yet. I first want to
>>> make sure lustre has the high output performance at a basic level. I
>>> tried to write a C program uses simple POSIX calls (open and looping
>>> over writes) but I don't see much increase in performance (I've tried 8
>>> and 19 OST's, 1MB and 4MB chunks, I write a 6GB file).
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if this should work? What is the simplest C program I
>>> could write to see an increase in output performance after I stripe? Do
>>> I need separate processes/threads with separate file handles? I am on
>>> linux red hat 5. I'm not sure what version of lustre this is. I have
>>> skimmed through a 450 page pdf of lustre documentation, I saw references
>>> to destructive testing one does in the beginning, but I'm not sure what
>>> I can do now. I think this is the first work we've done to get high
>>> performance when writing a single file, so I'm worried there is
>>> something buried in the lustre configuration that needs to be changed. I
>>> can run /usr/sbin/lcntl, maybe there are certain parameters I should
>>> check?
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> David Schneider
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>> --
>> I/O Doctors, LLC
>> 507-766-0378
>> bauerj at iodoctors.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org


-- 
------------------------------
Jeff Johnson
Co-Founder
Aeon Computing

jeff.johnson at aeoncomputing.com
www.aeoncomputing.com
t: 858-412-3810 x1001   f: 858-412-3845
m: 619-204-9061

4170 Morena Boulevard, Suite D - San Diego, CA 92117

High-performance Computing / Lustre Filesystems / Scale-out Storage