[lustre-discuss] Quick ZFS pool question?

[Riccardo Veraldi]

I do not have always big file, I Also have small files on Lustre, so I 
found out in my scenario that the default 128K record size
fits my needs better.
In real life I do not expect to have direct I/O . But before putting it 
in production I Was testing it
and the Direct I/O performances were far lower than other similar lustre 
partitions with ldiskfs.


On 17/10/16 08:59, PGabriele wrote:
> you can have a better understanding of the gap from this presentation: 
> ZFS metadata performance improvements 
> <http://www.eofs.eu/_media/events/lad16/02_zfs_md_performance_improvements_zhuravlev.pdf>
>
> On 14 October 2016 at 08:42, Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dilger at intel.com 
> <mailto:andreas.dilger at intel.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Oct 13, 2016 19:02, Riccardo Veraldi
>     <Riccardo.Veraldi at cnaf.infn.it
>     <mailto:Riccardo.Veraldi at cnaf.infn.it>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hello,
>     > will the lustre 2.9.0 rpm be released on the Intel site ?
>     > Also the latest rpm for zfsonlinux  available is 0.6.5.8
>
>     The Lustre 2.9.0 packages will be released, when the release is
>     complete.
>     You are welcome to test the pre-release version from Git, if you are
>     interested.
>
>     You are also correct that the ZoL 0.7.0 release is not yet available.
>     There are still improvements when using ZoL 0.6.5.8, but some of these
>     patches only made it into 0.7.0.
>
>     Cheers, Andreas
>
>     > On 13/10/16 11:16, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
>     >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:32, E.S. Rosenberg
>     <esr+lustre at mail.hebrew.edu <mailto:esr%2Blustre at mail.hebrew.edu>>
>     wrote:
>     >>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Xiong, Jinshan
>     <jinshan.xiong at intel.com <mailto:jinshan.xiong at intel.com>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Phill Harvey-Smith
>     <p.harvey-smith at warwick.ac.uk
>     <mailto:p.harvey-smith at warwick.ac.uk>> wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Having tested a simple setup for lustre / zfs, I'd like to
>     try and
>     >>>>> replicate on the test system what we currently have on the
>     production
>     >>>>> system, which uses a much older version of lustre (2.0 IIRC).
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Currently we have a combined mgs / mds node and a single oss
>     node.
>     >>>>> we have 3 filesystems : home, storage and scratch.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The MGS/MDS node currently has the mgs on a seperate block
>     device and
>     >>>>> the 3 mds on a combined lvm volume.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The OSS has an ost each (on a separate disks) for scratch
>     and home
>     >>>>> and two ost for storage.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> If we migrate this setup to a ZFS based one, will I need to
>     create a
>     >>>>> separate zpool for each mdt / mgt / oss  or will I be able
>     to create
>     >>>>> a single zpool and split it up between the individual mdt /
>     oss blocks,
>     >>>>> if so how do I tell each filesystem how big it should be?
>     >>>> We strongly recommend to create separate ZFS pools for OSTs,
>     otherwise grant, which is a Lustre internal space reserve
>     algorithm, won’t work properly.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> It’s possible to create a single zpool for MDTs and MGS, and
>     you can use ‘zfs set reservation=<space> <target>’ to reserve
>     spaces for different targets.
>     >>> I thought ZFS was only recommended for OSTs and not for MDTs/MGS?
>     >> The MGT/MDT can definitely be on ZFS.  The performance of ZFS
>     has been
>     >> trailing behind that of ldiskfs, but we've made significant
>     performance
>     >> improvements with Lustre 2.9 and ZFS 0.7.0. Many people use ZFS
>     for the
>     >> MDT backend because of the checksums and integrated JBOD
>     management, as
>     >> well as the ability to create snapshots, data compression, etc.
>     >>
>     >> Cheers, Andreas
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> lustre-discuss mailing list
>     >> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>     <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>     >> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>     <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>
>     >>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > lustre-discuss mailing list
>     > lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>     <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>     > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>     <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     lustre-discuss mailing list
>     lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>     <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>     http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>     <http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> www: http://paciucci.blogspot.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20161017/be7010ff/attachment.htm>