Talk:Lustre (file system)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

GPFS vs Lustre

Lustre does not directly talk or manage OSTs, and delegates this responsibility to OSSs. But the OSSs are a part of Lustre, aren't they? (as well as the OSTs). Do you mean The MDS does not directly talk to OSTs? --140.181.85.77 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: The distinction is that in a shared block filesystem like GPFS all of the clients write directly to the disks in the blocks they are assigned, while in Lustre the access to the disks is by (essentially) {object, offset, size} and is moderated by the OSS RPC interface. In the shared-block case, any kind of programming error (or malicious behaviour) on behalf of the client can read or overwrite arbitrary parts of the disk, while in Lustre the OSS can authenticate the client, the user, and the operations it is performing on each file in the filesystem. 70.72.213.136 09:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page so that is identifies Lustre as a distributed file system (like Ceph, GlusterFS, NFS etc) not a shared disk file system (like OCFS, GFS etc). As far as I undestand the clients in Lustre do not have block level access to the block storage on which the file system is located. --JerkerNyberg (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lustre logo.gif

Image:Lustre logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DataDirect Reference

The DataDirect link is invalid. I'd pull the reference but as it is needed to back the sentence, we really need a replacement. Does anyone have any links to other articles on data-directed computation on Lustre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filesystem Infobox

This page uses the Software infobox. However, it seems to be equally appropriate to use the Filesystem Infobox, which provides different fields of information. Is it possible to use both Infoboxes? Could some fields be added to Filesystem Infobox such that the Software Infobox would not be necessary?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.56.130 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lustre (file system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Network throughput claims

LNet provides end-to-end throughput over Gigabit Ethernet networks in excess of 100 MB/s,[75] throughput up to 11 GB/s using InfiniBand enhanced data rate (EDR) links, and throughput over 11 GB/s across 100 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces.

The current phrasing about throughput seems fairly irrelevant, Lustre (and other clustered filesystems) can saturate the links of multiple, be it gigabit Ethernet or 200G EDR IB, clients provided the setup of hardware and software accommodates it, in a small setup or with slow disks on the other hand the limiting factor will be said disks. With a decent single NFS server one may even be able to saturate its link under the right circumstances, of course with multiple clients this situation would change. --Keeper of the Keys (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]