[Lustre-discuss] Upgrading our filesystem

Andreas Dilger andreas.dilger at oracle.com
Sun Apr 11 17:15:27 PDT 2010

I would suggest to keep the OST size uniform that you migrate the  
existing OSTs to the new 600GB drive LUNs then combine pairs of (now  
unused) 300GB LUNs into double-sized OSTs to match the new ones.

While the MDS will handle different-sized OSTs OK, it isn't the ideal  

Cheers, Andreas

On 2010-04-09, at 20:17, Sebastian Gutierrez <gutseb at cs.stanford.edu>  

> Hello
> So we are currently looking at upgrading one of our Lustre file  
> system.
> The current filesystems:
> 2 MDS servers in a cold spare configuration over IB
> 2 Filesystems one /home and /scratch
> 8 OSS with 2 SAS JBODS each has 14x300GB 10K drives.  2 hot spares
> 2 OSTs per server. One segment is for /home and one for /scratch
> Proposed solution by hardware vendor.
> 8 OSS with 2 SAS JBODS each has 14x600GB 10K drives.  2 hot spares
> 2OSTs per server.
> Both segments would be added onto the /scratch file system.
> Max out the memory in the existing OSS systems to plan for future 1.8
> upgrade
> I understand the potential administrative overhead in having OSTs that
> are larger than the old OSTs.  I have not been supporting Lustre long
> enough to know if there are any major performance implications of this
> setup.
> My questions are:
> Will Lustre handle this type of configuration gracefully?
> Are there any other reasons that this may not be a good idea other  
> than
> administrative overhead of having to watch the OSTs and make sure that
> they do not fill up?
> Are there any issues with having these new servers serve 2 segments of
> the same filesystem?
> Are there anything else I should consider that I may be missing?
> Thanks
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list