[lustre-discuss] varying sequential read performance.

[Shawn Hall]

Simpler yet, I believe you can just manually set the OST index on which you would like the file to reside.

lfs setstripe -c 1 -i 0 file_on_ost0
lfs setstripe -c 1 -i 1 file_on_ost1
...

Shawn

On 4/5/18, 3:42 PM, "lustre-discuss on behalf of Scott Denham" <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org on behalf of sdenham at cray.com> wrote:

    >From: John Bent <johnbent at gmail.com>
    >To: John Bauer <bauerj at iodoctors.com>
    >Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] varying sequential read performance.
    
    > "I suspect that this OSC is using an OSS that is under heavier load."
    
    > If you want to confirm this, it seems like you could create files with
    > striping parameters such that you have a single file on each OSS.  Well, I
    >  know you can make stripe=1 so it's only on one OSS but can you
    > control/query on *which* OSS is the stripe?  Assuming you can, then you
    > just benchmark performance for each file (i.e. OSS) and you can discover
    > more explicitly whether you have a slow OSS.
    
    We have used Lustre pools in the past for this. They can overlap, so it is 
    Possible to create N pools with each pool containing only one OSS. 
    
    Scott Denham
    Staff Engineer - Presales at Cray, Inc
    
    _______________________________________________
    lustre-discuss mailing list
    lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
    http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
    
    
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20180405/63b22a03/attachment.html>