Hi Pablo,
I see your point. I was mentioning the orthodox xrootd anyway, not the
xrootd door, which from my point of view is just an emulation. After
all, this is the xrootd mailing list :-D
For lustre I am not an expert, from a pure functional standpoint you
can put an xrootd server exporting the lustre mountpoints I guess. In
that case you will not go beyond the lustre performance of course.
Fabrizio
Pablo Fernandez ha scritto:
> Thanks!
>
> Unfortunately the xrootd protocol does not work as expected in dcache. The
> idea was to use a conventional SE to store all the data for Tier2 and also
> serve files to the Tier3... I don't know if Lustre implements an xrootd door
> as well, maybe in a few months I'll try that.
>
> BR/Pablo
>
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 11:40, Fabrizio Furano wrote:
>> Hi Pablo,
>>
>> that's very interesting, and I agree completely with your conclusion,
>> i.e. in most cases the lan data access is more efficient and scales
>> better with respect to local disk access. Many times this is not very
>> well understood by people, always striving to keep local files at any cost.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to have a comparison between the
>> performance in proof between a dcache storage and an analogous xrootd
>> storage, which is the default solution for that. With the same pool of
>> workers of course.
>>
>> From what I've understood, dcache uses a read ahead mechanism (at the
>> client side), while xrootd uses a scheme which is mixed with informed
>> async prefetching.
>>
>> Fabrizio
>>
>> Pablo Fernandez ha scritto:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I would like to share with you some information about my testings of
>>> performance in Proof with different storage schemas.
>>>
>>> http://root.cern.ch/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6236
>>>
>>> I have translated this topic to the Proof Forum since seems to me more
>>> Proof-related than just xrootd, I hope you don't mind.
>>>
>>> BR/Pablo
>
|