Hi, I had a quick skim through the v1.8 Lustre manual and in section 4.4 there is a mention of the --cachefor and --proxyfor options to mkfs.lustre. I didn''t think Lustre had such functionality yet? Are these planned for a 1.8x release? How do they work exactly? In the recent discussion of Lustre as root there was mention of using FS-Cache for client read caching - how would this differ from the --cachefor feature (could it do read caching?). We are quite interested in using an NFS gateway to Lustre which would have local caching for WAN operation so any client caching would be very beneficial to us. Regards, Daire
On May 11, 2009 12:28 +0100, Daire Byrne wrote:> I had a quick skim through the v1.8 Lustre manual and in section > 4.4 there is a mention of the --cachefor and --proxyfor options to > mkfs.lustre. I didn''t think Lustre had such functionality yet? Are these > planned for a 1.8x release? How do they work exactly?I don''t believe we support these options at all, as I can''t find any such options in the code. I''ll bring this up with our documentation team.> In the recent discussion of Lustre as root there was mention of > using FS-Cache for client read caching - how would this differ from the > --cachefor feature (could it do read caching?). We are quite interested > in using an NFS gateway to Lustre which would have local caching for > WAN operation so any client caching would be very beneficial to us.I haven''t heard any update on this feature, but AFAIK the fscache work is the only one progressing on this front today. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
----- "Andreas Dilger" <adilger at sun.com> wrote:> On May 11, 2009 12:28 +0100, Daire Byrne wrote: > > I had a quick skim through the v1.8 Lustre manual and in section > > 4.4 there is a mention of the --cachefor and --proxyfor options to > > mkfs.lustre. I didn''t think Lustre had such functionality yet? Are these > > planned for a 1.8x release? How do they work exactly? > > I don''t believe we support these options at all, as I can''t find any > such options in the code. I''ll bring this up with our documentation > team.Yea I didn''t think so. Were they even ever on a roadmap?> > In the recent discussion of Lustre as root there was mention of > > using FS-Cache for client read caching - how would this differ from the > > --cachefor feature (could it do read caching?). We are quite interested > > in using an NFS gateway to Lustre which would have local caching for > > WAN operation so any client caching would be very beneficial to us. > > I haven''t heard any update on this feature, but AFAIK the fscache > work is the only one progressing on this front today.I haven''t heard anything from the guy who was working on lustre + fscache so I can only assume that it is no longer being worked on. Shame. Daire