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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> on behalf of > Patrick Farrell <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 11:50 PM > *To: *John Bent <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > *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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:55:24 PM > *To:* Patrick Farrell > *Cc:* Abe Asraoui; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> on behalf of > Abe Asraoui <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:23:10 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org > > > _______________________________________________ > lustre-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org > > >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
