Re: is cache-only-prefixes an nnpfs limitation?
Harald Barth <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.arla.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> The HPC folks are almost ready to kill for this (and cacheless writes). > Right now they'll have to resort to linking against arlad to do it. Oh, yes we will ;-) The reason is that our users very often read small files (the "application") often and big files (the "data") once. Then they write big files (the "result") once. This behaviour is very differet from for example a class of students who read and write small files (the "program") often and read big files (the "compiler") often and almost never write big files. Some time in the future I hope we can hint the cache what to do. If the HPC folks would write stuff in C I could tell them to open(2) with O_DIRECT and then implement some other cache strategy for that, but most of these applictions are "behind" FORTRAN I/O. > BTW, what's the current status on ways for the user to communicate such > hints to the fs on various OS:es? I just love Windows in this respect, > they have tons of flags. They even have FILE_OPEN_FOR_FREE_SPACE_QUERY. I > wonder if it's ever used. In libc we could use open(2) with O_DIRECT, I just do not know it it would help my FORTRAN HPC folks. The C and C++ HPC folks could probably be teached to use O_DIRECT but I suspect that some other means (like an environment variable) might be necessary. Hm. I don't know what happens if I use O_DIRECT in Arla today if it is ignored or passed down on the cache file open. Harald.