xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 1 Gb Ethernet based HPC storage deployment plan

To: Lee Eric <openlinuxsource@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 1 Gb Ethernet based HPC storage deployment plan
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:58:21 -0500
Cc: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAOJJ1Zod9BgFCOZkav3zYy3k2wR9ohiN0U0R0sr1QdW5CWzV6g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAOJJ1Zp821vD0JbGf5PuNGcW4VX4E_3SfcWYxVA4es2o0pyJXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAOJJ1ZpL89-3xrhJTQgO97AebSSgnmfyM+mah75XOWiyi-wHwQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110723113027.162de009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E2BBC00.50902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAOJJ1Zod9BgFCOZkav3zYy3k2wR9ohiN0U0R0sr1QdW5CWzV6g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
On 7/25/2011 6:52 AM, Lee Eric wrote:
> Thanks mates. So the typical storage solution for the small size
> cluster may use IP SAN as I know before. Yes, I can export the data by
> using NFS directly without iSCSI/AoE but is there any good point to
> use XFS? I just know XFS is better for parallelized read/write
> operations in local disks.
> 
> By the way, is there any good advantage to use XFS as the underlying
> local filesystem for cluster/distributed/parallel filesystem?

Narrow down your candidate list of distributed filesystems and read the
documentation for each of them.  I'd guess that each one of them has a
recommendation of some sort for the local storage node filesystem and
the reasoning behind the recommendation.  Given the manner in which most
of them derive their parallel performance, the local filesystem is
likely not critical.

You mentioned an IP SAN.  Have you looked at GFS2 and OCFS?  You haven't
mentioned a workload.  We could better serve you if you described the
workload.

-- 
Stan

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