[lustre-discuss] [lustre-devel] MDT test in rel2.11

[Patrick Farrell]

Yes, there is intention to add it to lfs find.  Whether or not it should disqualify results is up to you at I/O 500 - it seems like if most users would think it acceptable for find most of the time (and it should be), then it should probably be allowed.  But at the same time, its (theoretical - couldn’t today) use for mdtest would very much be “writing to the benchmark” and defeating the intent.

________________________________
From: John Bent <johnbent at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:54:32 PM
To: Patrick Farrell
Cc: Abe Asraoui; lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] MDT test in rel2.11

Thanks Patrick.  That's interesting.  However, the exact motivation why IO500 has the 'find' command is this same intended use case; stale results therefore actually present an interesting dilemma to IO500.  They are not POSIX compliant but that loss of compliance shouldn't necessarily disqualify this result...

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com<mailto:paf at cray.com>> wrote:
Lazy SoM is not landed yet, and it won’t be improving benchmark scores - it’s never “known 100% correct”, so it can’t be used for actual POSIX ops - if a file size read out is used for a write offset, then you’ve got data corruption.

So for now it’s strictly limited to tools that know about it (accessed via an ioctl) and can accept information that may be stale.  The intended use case is scanning the FS for policy application.

________________________________
From: John Bent <johnbent at gmail.com<mailto:johnbent at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:55:24 PM
To: Patrick Farrell
Cc: Abe Asraoui; lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] MDT test in rel2.11

I'm curious about how DOM improves IO500 scores.  :)
Also LSOM but I don't know actually whether that's in 2.11 or where.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com<mailto:paf at cray.com>> wrote:

Abe,

Any benchmarking would be highly dependent on hardware, both client and server.  Is there a particular comparison (say, between versions) you’re interested in or something you’re concerned about?

- Patrick

________________________________
From: lustre-devel <lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org>> on behalf of Abe Asraoui <AbeA at supermicro.com<mailto:AbeA at supermicro.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:23:10 PM
To: lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>; Abe Asraoui
Subject: [lustre-devel] MDT test in rel2.11

Hi All,


Has anyone done any MDT testing under the latest rel2.11 and have benchmark data to share?


Thanks,
Abe


_______________________________________________
lustre-devel mailing list
lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org

_______________________________________________
lustre-devel mailing list
lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20180718/b0c68d6a/attachment.html>