From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian J. Murrell Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Lustre-devel] Wide area use of Lustre and client caches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1210352902.23307.242.camel@pc.ilinx> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 09:08 -0600, Peter Braam wrote: > Nono - striping should only be used to get more bandwidth from servers. The > correct solution to the problem you point out is a lock conversion, Indeed, I have heard that term being used and figured that that is what it was all about, however... > planned > long ago, still far away maybe (Nikita?). Given that it's not yet available and won't be for some time, isn't breaking a file up into many objects via striping a sufficient alternative to the problem? Are there other problems caused by striping a file (that technically doesn't need more bandwidth) that outweigh the benefits of not having to toss so much cache away when a file is written to (i.e. assuming the cost of reading the file is high such as it would be on a WAN link)? b. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: