<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Does lustre have mount options to mimic NFS mount option behavior , listed below? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I know in most cases, Lustre would perform much better than NFS and can scale and support a lot of clients in parallel. I have a use case, where there are only few clients accessing the filesystem and the files are really small, but in millions and files are very infrequently updated. The files are stored on an NFS server and its mounted on the clients with the below mount options, which results in caching of file attributes/metadata on the client and thus reduces # of calls to metadata and delivers better performance. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u>NFS mount options<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>type nfs (rw,<span style='color:red'>nolock,nocto,actimeo=900</span>,nfsvers=3,proto=tcp)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A custom proprietary application which compile (make command) on some of these files takes 20-24 seconds to run. The same command when ran on the same files stored in BeeGFS parallel filesystem takes 80-90 seconds (4x times slow), mainly because there is no client caching in BeeGFS and client has to make a lot more metadata calls compared to NFS cache file attributes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u>Question<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>I already tried BeeGFS and I am asking this question to determine, if Lustre performance would be better than NFS for very small file workloads (50 bytes, 200 bytes, 2KB files) with 5 millions files spread across nested directories. Does lustre have mount options to mimic NFS mount option behavior, listed below? Or is there some optional feature in Lustre to achieve this cache behavior? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://linux.die.net/man/5/nfs">https://linux.die.net/man/5/nfs</a><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>ac</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'> / <b>noac</b></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>Selects whether the client may cache file attributes. If neither option is specified (or if <b>ac</b> is specified), the client caches file attributes.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:red'>For my custom applications, cache of file attributes is fine (no negative impact) and it helps to improve performance of NFS. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444'>actimeo=</span></b><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444'>n</span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444'>Using <b>actimeo</b> sets all of <b>acregmin</b>, <b>acregmax</b>, <b>acdirmin</b>, and <b>acdirmax</b> to the same value. If this option is not specified, the NFS client uses the defaults for each of these options listed above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:red'>For my applications, it’s okay to use cache file attributes/metadata for few mins (eg: 5mins) by setting this value, it can reduce # of metadata calls been made to the server and especially with filesystems storing lot of small files, it’s a huge performance penalty, which can be avoided. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:red'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>nolock<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>When mounting servers that do not support the NLM protocol, or when mounting an NFS server through a firewall that blocks the NLM service port, specify the <b>nolock</b> mount option.</span> <span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>Specifying the <b>nolock</b> option may also be advised to improve the performance of a proprietary application which runs on a single client and uses file locks extensively.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Appreciate any guidance. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>pinkesh valdria<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>