[lustre-discuss] Lustre Sizing

ANS ans3456 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 23:35:22 PST 2018


Thank you Jeff. I have created the lustre on ZFS freshly and no other is
having access to it. So when mounted it on client it is showing around 40TB
variation from the actual space.

So what could be the reason for this variation of the size.

Thanks,
ANS

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:21 PM Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson at aeoncomputing.com>
wrote:

> Very forward versions...especially on ZFS.
>
> You build OST volumes in a pool. If no other volumes are defined in a pool
> then 100% of that pool will be available for the OST volume but the way ZFS
> works the capacity doesn’t really belong to the OST volume until blocks are
> allocated for writes. So you have a pool
> Of a known size and you’re the admin. As long as nobody else can create a
> ZFS volume in that pool then all of the capacity in that pool will go to
> the OST eventually when new writes occur. Keep in mind that the same pool
> can contain multiple snapshots (if created) so the pool is a “potential
> capacity” but that capacity could be concurrently allocated to OST volume
> writes, snapshots and other ZFS volumes (if created)
>
> —Jeff
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 22:20 ANS <ans3456 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jeff. Currently i am using
>>
>> modinfo zfs | grep version
>> version:        0.8.0-rc2
>> rhelversion:    7.4
>>
>> lfs --version
>> lfs 2.12.0
>>
>> And this is a fresh install. So is there any other possibility to show
>> the complete zpool lun has been allocated for lustre alone.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ANS
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jeff Johnson <
>> jeff.johnson at aeoncomputing.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ANS,
>>>
>>> Lustre on top of ZFS has to estimate capacities and it’s fairly off when
>>> the OSTs are new and empty. As objects are written to OSTs and capacity is
>>> consumed it gets the sizing of capacity more accurate. At the beginning
>>> it’s so off that it appears to be an error.
>>>
>>> What version are you running? Some patches have been added to make this
>>> calculation more accurate.
>>>
>>> —Jeff
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 22:08 ANS <ans3456 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Team,
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to configure lustre with backend ZFS as file system with 2
>>>> servers in HA. But after compiling and creating zfs pools
>>>>
>>>> zpool list
>>>> NAME           SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  CKPOINT  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP
>>>> DEDUP    HEALTH  ALTROOT
>>>> lustre-data   54.5T  25.8M  54.5T        -     16.0E     0%     0%
>>>> 1.00x    ONLINE  -
>>>> lustre-data1  54.5T  25.1M  54.5T        -     16.0E     0%     0%
>>>> 1.00x    ONLINE  -
>>>> lustre-data2  54.5T  25.8M  54.5T        -     16.0E     0%     0%
>>>> 1.00x    ONLINE  -
>>>> lustre-data3  54.5T  25.8M  54.5T        -     16.0E     0%     0%
>>>> 1.00x    ONLINE  -
>>>> lustre-meta    832G  3.50M   832G        -     16.0E     0%     0%
>>>> 1.00x    ONLINE  -
>>>>
>>>> and when mounted to client
>>>>
>>>> lfs df -h
>>>> UUID                       bytes        Used   Available Use% Mounted on
>>>> home-MDT0000_UUID         799.7G        3.2M      799.7G   0%
>>>> /home[MDT:0]
>>>> home-OST0000_UUID          39.9T       18.0M       39.9T   0%
>>>> /home[OST:0]
>>>> home-OST0001_UUID          39.9T       18.0M       39.9T   0%
>>>> /home[OST:1]
>>>> home-OST0002_UUID          39.9T       18.0M       39.9T   0%
>>>> /home[OST:2]
>>>> home-OST0003_UUID          39.9T       18.0M       39.9T   0%
>>>> /home[OST:3]
>>>>
>>>> filesystem_summary:       159.6T       72.0M      159.6T   0% /home
>>>>
>>>> So out of total 54.5TX4=218TB i am getting only 159 TB usable. So can
>>>> any one give the information regarding this.
>>>>
>>>> Also from performance prospective what are the zfs and lustre
>>>> parameters to be tuned.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ANS.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 C - San Diego, CA 92117
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4170+Morena+Boulevard,+Suite+C+-+San+Diego,+CA+92117&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> High-Performance Computing / Lustre Filesystems / Scale-out Storage
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> ANS.
>>
> --
> ------------------------------
> 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 C - San Diego, CA 92117
>
> High-Performance Computing / Lustre Filesystems / Scale-out Storage
>


-- 
Thanks,
ANS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20190101/c258681c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list