On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:34 PM Vicker, Darby J. (JSC-EG111)[Jacobs Technology, Inc.] <[email protected]> wrote: > This took a very long time for me to clone from the web. But just cloning > from disk to disk on a local SSD (git clone linux-stable linux-stable2) takes > about 2 minutes - about the same as the repo I've been using. I just cloned > it from the local SSD to lustre and it took me about 11.5 mintues for the > clone. That timing is in line to what I reported earlier if you scale by the > number of files. >
a first blush pass a cloning the kernel produced, 4mins on nfs and 8mins on lustre. i've done nothing to check/test/etc, literally just the git clones. the source repo is sitting on a raid10 of 4 ssd's, the box is a server machine plenty of cpu's/memory and 10G ethernet so at least our numbers match. my lustre system might be a little faster or less utilized then yours. which might account for the shorter lustre time > I would also love to know what your "out of the box" io500 MD test numbers > look like (./io500.sh config-minimal.ini) as those should be a good data to > compare too. i've had no end of trouble trying to get this test to run and gave up. i'll give it another go and see what i can pull out. the framework isn't the greatest in my opinion. since i can't quesce my system, i'm not sure how relevant the results would be anyhow. _______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
