[Beowulf] NFS cache vs. local reading
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Daniel Navas-Parejo Alonso danapa2000 at gmail.comSat Sep 30 04:50:21 PDT 2006
- Previous message: [Beowulf] NFS cache vs. local reading
- Next message: NFS Performance (was Re: [Beowulf] GPFS on Linux (x86))
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jerry, To make NFS to do that, you should configure something similar to cachefs. I've used this in Solaris, don't know if it has been released also to Linux or other OSs. If you use LustreFS or similar, you'll have also the cache mechanism built-in. I think your suggestion is right, let NFS do that, just in case in the future, the code behaviour is different so you have to change the script again and again each time the number 100 decreases/increases. Anyway, take into account that NFS cache is local to each node of the cluster, so if the subsequent times you run the code, the jobs are scheduled to other nodes that have never access the data file, you've got to access NFS again. Rgds, Daniel. 2006/9/15, Xu, Jerry <YXU11 at partners.org>: > > > Hi, Guys, > > I am maintaining a cluster that is using NFS and LSF. There is one user > need > to run a large mount jobs with only few nodes. In each of his job, he > needs to > read a gread deal of data from the home directory which is shared and > mounted > to every computing node. Many times the data file are same, but will > change > every 100 job finishes. If every job on the computing node(s) just go > straight > to read data from the home directory, it (they) will go through NFS and > the > network to get the file. Seems a lot waste of efforts. So, I suggested to > use > script (by using job array and LSB_JOBINDEX) to determine whether to copy > the > data to local disk in the first job of every 100 job, then the rest 99 job > will > just read from the local disk. > My question is, since NFS also have cache, how much benefit this approach > will > improve the performance? Because, if I were NFS and I am smart enough, I > shall > be able to know whether I am reading the same file over and over again.. > then, > will NFS cache size matter? > > Somebody can give a comment? > > Jerry > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20060930/9aefac06/attachment.html
- Previous message: [Beowulf] NFS cache vs. local reading
- Next message: NFS Performance (was Re: [Beowulf] GPFS on Linux (x86))
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
