<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">We use adaptec 51245s and 51645s with <div><br></div><div>1. max_hw_sectors_kb=512 <br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>2. RAID5 4+1 or RAID6 4+2</div><div>3. RAID chunk size = 128</div><div><br></div><div>So each 1 MB lustre RPC results in two 4-way, striped writes with no read-modify-write penalty. We can further improve write performance by matching the max_pages_per_rpc (per OST on the client side) i.e. the max rpc size to the max_hw_sectors_kb setting for the block devices. In this case</div><div><br></div><div>max_pages_per_rpc=128</div><div><br></div><div>instead of the default 256 at which point you have 1 raid-stripe write per rpc. </div><div><br></div><div>If you put your OSTs atop LVs (LVM2) as we do, you will want to take the additional step of making sure your LVs are aligned as well.</div><div><br></div><div>pvcreate --dataalignment 1024S /dev/sd$driveChar</div><div><br></div><div>You need a fairly new version of the LVM2 that supports the --dataalignment option. We are using lvm2-2.02.56-8.el5_5.6.x86_64.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that we attempted to increase the max_hw_sectors_kb for the block devices (RAID LDs) to 1024 but in order to do so, we needed to change the adaptec driver (aacraid) kernel parameter acbsize=8192 which we found to be unstable. For our adaptec drivers we use..</div><div><br></div><div>options aacraid cache=7 msi=2 expose_physicals=-1 acbsize=4096</div><div><br></div><div>Note that most of the information above was the result of testing and tuning performed here by Craig Prescott. </div><div><br></div><div>We now have close to a PB of such storage in production here at the UF HPC Center. We used Areca cards at first but found them to be a bit too flakey for our needs. The adaptecs seem to have some infant mortality issues. We RMA about 10% to 12% percent of newly purchased cards but if they make it past initial burn-in testing, they tend to be pretty reliable. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Charlie Taylor</div><div>UF HPC Center</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br><div><div>On Jul 5, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Daire Byrne wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>I have been testing some LSI 9260 RAID cards for use with Lustre v1.8.6 but have found that the "megaraid_sas" driver is not really able to facilitate the 1MB full stripe IOs that Lustre likes. This topic has also come up recently in the following two email threads:</div> <div><br></div><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/lustre-discuss-list/browse_thread/thread/65a1fdc312b0eccb#" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lustre-discuss-list/browse_thread/thread/65a1fdc312b0eccb#</a> <div><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/lustre-discuss-list/browse_thread/thread/fcf39d85b7e945ab" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lustre-discuss-list/browse_thread/thread/fcf39d85b7e945ab</a></div><div> <br></div><div>I was able to up the max_hw_sectors_kb -> 1024 by setting the "max_sectors" megaraid_sas module option but found that the IOs were still being pretty fragmented:</div><div><br></div><div><div> disk I/O size ios % cum % | ios % cum %</div><div>4K: 3060 0 0 | 2611 0 0</div><div>8K: 3261 0 0 | 2664 0 0</div><div>16K: 6408 0 1 | 5296 0 1</div> <div>32K: 13025 1 2 | 10692 1 2</div><div>64K: 48397 4 6 | 26417 2 4</div><div>128K: 50166 4 10 | 42218 4 9</div><div>256K: 113124 9 20 | 86516 8 17</div> <div>512K: 677242 57 78 | 448231 45 63</div><div>1M: 254195 21 100 | 355804 36 100</div></div><div><br></div><div>So next I looked at the sg_tablesize and found it was being set to "80" by the driver (which queries the firmware). I tried to hack the driver and increase this value but bad things happened and so it looks like it is a genuine hardware limit with these cards.</div> <div><br></div><div>The overall throughput isn't exactly terrible because the RAID write-back cache does a reasonable job but I suspect it could be better, e.g.</div><div><br></div><div><div>ost 3 sz 201326592K rsz 1024K obj 192 thr 192 write 1100.52 [ 231.75, 529.96] read 940.26 [ 275.70, 357.60] </div> <div>ost 3 sz 201326592K rsz 1024K obj 192 thr 384 write 1112.19 [ 184.80, 546.43] read 1169.20 [ 337.63, 462.52] </div><div>ost 3 sz 201326592K rsz 1024K obj 192 thr 768 write 1217.79 [ 219.77, 665.32] read 1532.47 [ 403.58, 552.43] </div> <div>ost 3 sz 201326592K rsz 1024K obj 384 thr 384 write 920.87 [ 171.82, 466.77] read 901.03 [ 257.73, 372.87] </div><div>ost 3 sz 201326592K rsz 1024K obj 384 thr 768 write 1058.11 [ 166.83, 681.25] read 1309.63 [ 346.64, 484.51]</div> </div><div><br></div><div>All of this brings me to my main question - what internal cards have people here used which work well with Lustre? 3ware, Areca or other models of LSI?</div> <div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Daire</div> _______________________________________________<br>Lustre-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org">Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org</a><br>http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>