[Lustre-discuss] Future of LusterFS?

[Troy Benjegerdes]

Taking a break from my current non-computer related work.. 

My guess based on your success is your gear is not so much cheap, as
*cost effective high MTBF commodity parts*. 

If you go for the absolute bargain basement stuff, you'll have problems
as individual components flake out. 

If you spend way too much money on high-end multi-redundant whizbangs,
you generally get two things.. redundancy, which in my mind often only
serves to make the eventual failure worse, and high-quality, long MTBF
components.

If you can get the high MTBF components without all the redudancy
(and associated complexity nightmare), then you win.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:42:30PM +0800, Stu Midgley wrote:
> We run lustre on cheap off the shelf gear.  We have 4 generations of
> cheapish gear in a single 300TB lustre config (40 oss's)
> 
> It has been running very very well for about 3.5 years now.
> 
> 
> > Would lustre have issues if using cheap off the shell components or
> > would people here think you need to have high end maskines with built in
> > redundancy for everything?
> 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes                 'da hozer'                hozer at hozed.org  
CTO, Freedom Fertilizer, Sustainable wind to NH3, troy at freedomfertilizer.com
Benjegerdes Farms					TerraCarbo biofuels

The challenge in changing the world is not in having great ideas, it's in
having stupid simple ideas, as those are the ones that cause change.

Intellectual property is one of those great complicated ideas that
intellectuals like to intellectualize over, lawyers like to bill too
much over, and engineers like to overengineer. Meanwhile, it's the
stupid simple ideas underfoot that create wealth.   -- Troy, Mar 2010