[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 1 Gb Ethernet based HPC storage deployment plan

To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 1 Gb Ethernet based HPC storage deployment plan
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:30:24 -0500
Cc: Lee Eric <openlinuxsource@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110723113027.162de009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAOJJ1Zp821vD0JbGf5PuNGcW4VX4E_3SfcWYxVA4es2o0pyJXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAOJJ1ZpL89-3xrhJTQgO97AebSSgnmfyM+mah75XOWiyi-wHwQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110723113027.162de009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
On 7/23/2011 4:30 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:03:33 +0800 vous écriviez:
>> I know it would be better if I can use Lustre but my interconnection
>> is a little slow. I suspect if it is feasible if using such parallel
>> file system.
>> Does anyone has good idea on this deployment?
> For this kind of setup, true cluster filesystems like Lustre,
> PVFS2/OrangeFS, Gluster, Ceph... would be much better. Striping 20
> iSCSI volumes across would be awfully dangerous.
> I'd go with OrangeFS (pvfs.org) because I'm pretty happy with it so far
> (using XFS as the underlying local filesystem). It's precisely made to
> agreggate computing clusters storage.

Typically one starts looking at hardware solutions after identifying the
needs of the target application/workload.

Is the proposed storage cluster system simply a proof of concept
testbed, or will it actually be tasked with real work?  If the latter
I'd rethink your iSCSI export to NFS server idea.  You mentioned only 8
disks.  Just drop them directly into the NFS host and avoid many
potential headaches down the road.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>