[lustre-discuss] kerberised lustre performance

[E.S. Rosenberg]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson at ddn.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have not specifically measured the performance impact of getting the
> Kerberos ticket before any Lustre request can be sent by the client. It
> happens at the first connection (so when mounting) and then when the ticket
> expires. Otherwise the ticket is cached.
> So unless the ticket has a very short lifetime of a few seconds,
> contacting the Kerberos server to renew the ticket should have very little
> impact on a standard production workflow.
>
Ah, so it is only to authenticate/authorize the client system and not the
user that is trying to access files?
Thanks,
Eli

>
> Cheers,
> Sebastien.
>
> > Le 27 avr. 2017 à 13:10, E.S. Rosenberg <esr+lustre at mail.hebrew.edu> a
> écrit :
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > I just saw Sebatians' talk at LUG 2016 (Yes I know I'm a bit behind
> times) and I was wondering if and how much a performance impact there is
> from the need to get kerberos tickets before file actions (or is it only
> mounting?)...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo6b03zxrIs
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eli
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lustre-discuss mailing list
> > lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20170501/5d3df39d/attachment.htm>