<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Maybe this would be where multiple MDS + small files on MDS would shine?<br></div>My 1 millionth of a bitcoin,<br></div>Eli<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Brian Andrus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toomuchit@gmail.com" target="_blank">toomuchit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
I have always seen lustre as a good solution for large files and not the best for many small files.<br>
Recently, I have seen a request for a small lustre system (2 OSSes, 1 MDS) that would be for billions of files that average 50k-100k.<br>
<br>
It seems to me, that for this to be 'of worth', the block sizes on disks need to be small, but even then, with tcp overhead and inode limitations, it may still not perform all that well (compared to larger files).<br>
<br>
Am I off here? Have there been some developments in lustre that help this scenario (beyond small files being stored on the MDT directly)?<br>
<br>
Thanks for any insight,<br>
<br>
Brian Andrus<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
lustre-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" target="_blank">lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.or<wbr>g</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.lustre.org/listin<wbr>fo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.<wbr>org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>