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

[John Bent]

Certainly we can allow non-POSIX compliant "find" results in the list with
a column identifying them as being non-POSIX compliant.  The larger
question is whether one of these results can be considered a "winner".

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Cory Spitz <spitzcor at cray.com> wrote:

> Yes, if the IO500 is representing a use case where the file size or block
> count must be correct, then LSoM can’t be used.  However, the IO500 can be
> changed by consensus and perhaps there is a reason to include a use case
> which fits LSoM?
>
>
>
> If so, the IO500 could be changed to allow `lfs find` and it in-turn could
> be used to get LSoM info as Andreas pointed out in his comment of LU-9538:
> https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-9538?focusedCommentId=230392&page=
> com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel#comment-230392 .
>
>
>
> -Cory
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *lustre-devel <lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org> on behalf of
> Patrick Farrell <paf at cray.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 11:50 PM
> *To: *John Bent <johnbent at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org" <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>,
> "lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org" <lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [lustre-devel] MDT test in rel2.11
>
>
>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:55:24 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
>
>
>
> 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> 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> on behalf of
> Abe Asraoui <AbeA at supermicro.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:23:10 PM
> *To:* lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org; 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
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> 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/20180718/7d793fc1/attachment.html>