[Twg] [Discuss] FW: OpenSFS TWG Requi... - Have we achieved the single-server MD...

[Liang Zhen]

I would say performance improvement is a long term work, we can't expect one patch to resolve all performance issues. If there's a chance to make a longer term comparison, for example, compare 2.2 with 2.0, I think there should be nice improvement, we can't say which one contribute the most because one patch/feature is supposed to resolve one issue and we can see overall improvement with many of them. 

Regards
Liang

On May 1, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Nathan Rutman wrote:

> Right, these are different things.  But both were intended to be metadata improvements.
> The pdirops results have been posted, but for actual files (e.g. with OST objects) the create/unlink rates didn't show much improvement.
> I have not seen any measurements of 'ls -la' for any delivered features (although that doesn't mean they don't exist).
> 
> The question now is, do we as OpenSFS members want to continue to prioritize single-server MDS performance improvements? 
> 
> 
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Alex Tomas wrote:
> 
>> hmm? pdirops is not supposed to improve directory listing, AFAIK.
>> 
>> thanks, Alex
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Rutman <Nathan_Rutman at xyratex.com> wrote:
>> pdirops was delivered, but the improvement results were somewhat disappointing.  I've seen no metrics for various directory listing improvements, although they may exist.
>> Should we set a target rate? E.g. "ls -al" for a dir with 100K single-stripe files?
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 30, 2012, at 11:53 AM, John Carrier wrote:
>> 
>>> Nathan adds a good question:  metadata performance was the focus of our last RFP.  Are there any performance targets not covered by our current development contract?
>>>  
>>> --jc
>>>  
>>> Nathan Rutman added a comment to OpenSFS TWG Requirements 2012
>>> Nathan Rutman
>>> Metadata server performance
>>> Have we achieved the single-server MDS performance goals? Do we need to move some more solid requirements to 2012?
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.opensfs.org
>>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-opensfs.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> twg mailing list
>> twg at lists.opensfs.org
>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/twg-opensfs.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> twg mailing list
> twg at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/twg-opensfs.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/twg_lists.opensfs.org/attachments/20120501/f2a2690d/attachment.html>