Please don't reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by using the following link: https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10744
(In reply to comment #30) > The precise settings for DDN 8500 arrays were published recently on the > lustre-devel mailing list, (with graphs). Also our wiki was updated at the > same time: > Please don't reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by using the following link: > https://mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/LustreDdnTuning As far as I can tell, those setting recommendations were made on the DDN 8500s used at ORNL for these surveys. I fail to see a magic bullet in that wiki page that would solve the performance issues we saw in this bug. As I recall, we were told it was the reservation based allocator that would solve the performance problems here. We've not seen that yet, or proved the performance improvement claims either, so I would want to leave this bug open as well until we can verify any "fix". _______________________________________________ Lustre-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
