Hello Brian, Thanks for your info. This is what I am doing right now--- probably the easy way to use more lustre clients. I am thinking if there is a way to reduce the local traffic. Maybe not at the moment. Regards, Yujun On Fri, 22 May 2009 lustre-discuss-request at lists.lustre.org wrote:> > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:32:11 -0400 > From: "Brian J. Murrell" <Brian.Murrell at Sun.COM> > Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] gridftp and Lustre > To: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org > Message-ID: <1243006331.8331.98.camel at pc.interlinx.bc.ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 11:24 -0400, Yujun Wu wrote: > > Hello, > > Hi, > > > remote client---->gridftp server--->Lustre OSS > > > > And the gridftp server is busy with receiving and sending packets > > all the time. > > Is it so busy that it is unable to push the Lustre servers to full > capacity? > > > Is there a way for the control info goes to gridftp > > server, but the data go to Lustre OSS directly? > > No. All access to the Lustre servers have to go through a Lustre > client. > > It sounds like you need to scale up with more Lustre clients (aka > gridftp servers). Whether gridftp as a service supports growth through > parallelization or not, I have no idea. Typically with services that > don''t, something like round-robin DNS can be used to spread load. Other > techniques can be used to make an IP service that is not natively > parallel provide parallel access. > > b.