Lustre is fine, it was a corrupted file. NIS had nothing to do with the problem. From: Donald J. Kolva Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:05 AM To: Donald J. Kolva; lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org Subject: RE: Slow lustre after NIS So after some more experimentation yesterday, moving 15 GB files and such, the lustre performance is fine. It seems that the slow down occurs when a single file is being written in many chunks, and not related to security at all. Could this be due to file locking? Is there a good way to debug this? From: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org> [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org]<mailto:[mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org]> On Behalf Of Donald J. Kolva Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:22 AM To: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org> Subject: [Lustre-discuss] Slow lustre after NIS Lustre was as fast (or faster) than a local drive when security was handled by local nodes on a cluster. Switching the cluster to NIS (and also switching the MDS to the same NIS server) seems to have made Lustre 5x slower. Switching back to "local" security does not restore the speed. Can Lustre work with NIS? Does each OST need to be NIS or just the MDS? Is there a good way to debug the performance of Lustre? I''ve poured over the manual, but it doesn''t seem clear on how to debug this performance problem. Lustre over the 1 GB network is as slow as Infiniband. Setup is on MDS, and three OST each running CentOS 5.5 Cluster is one headnode and 8 computenodes with RHEL 5.5 Thanks for any help! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20110915/6595db2e/attachment.html