Tasks are often quite short, files are also quite small. Job rate can be quite high (can reach 10 to 20/second)
We actualy use NFS under centos4.7 and experience coherency problems.
I tested AFS, lustre, glusterFS. All showed too much overhead with small files, and less performance than nfs.
The coherency problem seems related to the ext3 timestamp resolution (1 second), and the poor NFS cache system. It is not coherent even with the noac (no attribute cache option)
First GFS test on 6 nodes (with gnbd) were ok, but there had been unexplained kernel panics (even when not working) that prevented further tests.
I will try to upgrade the cluster to a more recent distribution and test GFS on 30 nodes.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jens Larsson <jens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Just curious if GFS can be used in a HPC environment, like GPFS orNFS (<4.1) doesn't scale either. I would say that GPFS and Lustre is more
> > Oracle OCFS2?
> I don't think so. Comments from people in the HPC-business indicate that
> it doesn't scale to the number of nodes that typically forms these kinds
> of environments.
>
> NFS still rulez there, together with more (ISILON/Panasas) or less (SUN)
> specialized NFS-serving-gear.
> Rainer
usable than NFS in an HPC environment. You need a parallell file system
when the data rates gets higher. But much depends on the I/O-profile of
the jobs.
/jens
--
Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN
Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: jens@xxxxxxxxxx
GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson <jens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
