1 |
From: Bryan Green <bgreen@××××××××.gov> |
2 |
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:33:12 -0800 |
3 |
|
4 |
"John R. Dunning" writes: |
5 |
> From: "Daniel van Ham Colchete" <daniel.colchete@×××××.com> |
6 |
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:15:49 -0200 |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Question: would you use Lustre 1.6 now or you would wait until the |
9 |
> official version is out? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> If I had to ship today, I'd probably ship the 1.6b5 code. I find lustre 1.4 |
12 |
> much more of a headache to configure and manage. Thankfully, I don't have to |
13 |
> ship today; I expect by the time I do, cfs will have released the real 1.6 |
14 |
> code. |
15 |
|
16 |
It is encouraging to hear that you are willing to base a product on Lustre |
17 |
1.6. |
18 |
|
19 |
There are problems either way, but based on my experience, I believe 1.6 is a |
20 |
better choice, at least for the kind of situation I'm expecting to see. |
21 |
That's based partly on the fact that in my testing I've seen a pretty small |
22 |
quotient of out-and-out bugs (though there are a couple which are pretty |
23 |
annoying) and partly on the fact that configuration and management-wise, 1.6 |
24 |
is way easier to deal with. Part of what I expect will be happening in |
25 |
deployments is to be building lustrefs's on the fly, under control of some |
26 |
kind of configurator thingie. For that kind of task, 1.4 would be much more |
27 |
difficult to deal with. |
28 |
|
29 |
We have a test gentoo cluster system which runs with lustre as its rootfs. It |
30 |
essentially "just works". I've run numerous benchmarks and tests on it, |
31 |
including bonnie, iozone, ltp, and assorted bits of application code; for the |
32 |
most part it's been trouble-free, and the performance is generally pretty |
33 |
good. There are a few areas where, due to the properties of lustre, things |
34 |
run unexpectedly slow, but for my purposes, they're all things that can be |
35 |
lived with. What I conclude from all that is that it's good enough for me to |
36 |
consider shipping it as part of a product while still being able to sleep at |
37 |
night :-} |
38 |
|
39 |
Are you by any chance willing to share some of your knowledge about |
40 |
installing Lustre on Gentoo with others? :) |
41 |
|
42 |
Sure. |
43 |
|
44 |
Are you worrying about the kernel patching and other software installation |
45 |
issues, or about how to set up the fs itself once you've got the software |
46 |
together? |
47 |
|
48 |
Very briefly, the kernel-patching issue is an ongoing headache. Lustre |
49 |
patches vfs in non-trivial ways. Unfortunately, everybody else does too. It |
50 |
becomes a fairly ugly patch-merging problem. If you want, I can detail the |
51 |
process I've settled on for coming up with a kernel patchset, but you won't |
52 |
like it. There are similar issues around ldiskfs and other bits, but they're |
53 |
simpler, at least by comparison. |
54 |
|
55 |
Once the software is installed, configuring the fs goes pretty much by the |
56 |
book. mkfs.lustre, mount -t lustre, lfs, and lctl are your friends. You'll |
57 |
have some work to do deciding what your architecture is, in terms of how many |
58 |
OSTs of what type, what's the interconnect topology which will get you the |
59 |
best throughput etc, but there aren't really any landmines in there. I've |
60 |
only worked with the failover stuff a small amount, so can't really say a lot |
61 |
about that, but the time I did play with it, it seemed to work as advertised. |
62 |
|
63 |
If you are looking for more detail on something specific, I'm happy to say |
64 |
what little I know about it. |
65 |
|
66 |
Perhaps I could make |
67 |
self-support an option, if it looked like it would be reliable. |
68 |
|
69 |
Well, obviously, you should test the bejeezus out of your configuration before |
70 |
you declare open season on it. So far I haven't found reason to believe |
71 |
lustre is substantially worse than any of the other open-source software |
72 |
packages which are used in production situations. I think that constitutes a |
73 |
qualified "yes" :-} |
74 |
-- |
75 |
gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |