[Lustre-discuss] Harddisk Allocation

[Chan Ching Yu, Patrick]

Hi,

I am considering the harddisk allocation for the Lustre storage system.
There are totally two Lustre IO servers, one acts as MDS/OSS,  another acts as a pure OSS.
Both IO servers connect to a MD3200, which is daisy-chained by 4 MD1200.
Each MD storage system is equipped with 12 600GB harddisks.
I use ASCII-art to illustrate the storage system as follows:
(I also have the jpeg, but I dunno if jpeg is allowed in this mailling list, tell me if you can’t see the text-formated picture below)

MDS/OSS       OSS
       |                |
________________
|                             |    1    4    7   10
|        MD3200       |    2    5    8   11
|______________ |    3    6    9   12
________________
|                             |   1   4   7   10
|        MD1200       |   2   5   8   11
|______________ |   3   6   9   12
________________
|                             |   1   4   7   10
|        MD1200       |   2   5   8   11
|______________ |   3   6   9   12
________________
|                             |   1   4   7   10
|        MD1200       |   2   5   8   11
|______________ |  3   6    9   12
________________
|                             |   1  4   7   10
|        MD1200       |   2  5   8   11
|______________ |  3   6   9   12

This is my plan of harddisk allocation:

Harddisk 1 and 7 of MD3200 form a RAID-1 disk group, 
this disk group has multiple virtual disks, one of them is the MGS, others are MDT1, MDT2, MDT3....etc.

Harddisk 2,3,4,5,6 of MD3200/MD1200 form a RAID-5 disk group,
this disk group only has one virtual disk, the virtual disk is the OSS

Harddisk 8,9,10,11,12 of MD3200/MD1200 form a RAID-5 disk group,
this disk group only has one virtual disk, the virtual disk is the OSS

Hardisk 1 and 7 of all MD1200 are unused (or make them as hot spare)

Each OSS has 4 effective harddisks, segment size 256KB, so that the stripe size is 1MB.

The local harddisk of each IO server is very small, so I don’t intend to use them as MGS/MDT.


My plan above is considered based on  (not in prioritized order):
a) Easy to remember
b) Performance
c) Utilize the available harddisks as much as possible

Do you have any better suggestion?

Thanks.
CY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20130615/5036e7a1/attachment.htm>