 |
 |
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 >