[lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS

[Ben Evans]

It's not going to matter.  There aren't enough physical drives to push the Infiniband link, unless they're all SSDs.

From: Simon Guilbault <simon.guilbault at calculquebec.ca<mailto:simon.guilbault at calculquebec.ca>>
Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:13 PM
To: Amjad Syed <amjadcsu at gmail.com<mailto:amjadcsu at gmail.com>>
Cc: Ben Evans <bevans at cray.com<mailto:bevans at cray.com>>, "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>" <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>>
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS

Hi,

If everything is connected with SAS JBOD and controllers, you could probably run 1 OST on each server and get better performance that way. With both server reaching the same SAS drives, you could also have a failover in case one server does not work.

You can forget about failover if you are using SATA drives.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Amjad Syed <amjadcsu at gmail.com<mailto:amjadcsu at gmail.com>> wrote:
The vendor has proposed a single MDT  ( 4 * 1.2 TB) in RAID 10 configuration.
The OST will be RAID 6  and proposed are 2 OST.


On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ben Evans <bevans at cray.com<mailto:bevans at cray.com>> wrote:
How many OST's are behind that OSS?  How many MDT's behind the MDS?

From: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org>> on behalf of Brian Andrus <toomuchit at gmail.com<mailto:toomuchit at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:24 PM
To: "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>" <lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>>
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS


Hmm. That is an odd one from a quick thought...

However, IF you are planning on growing and adding OSSes/OSTs, this is not a bad way to get started and used to how everything works. It is basically a single stripe storage.

If you are not planning on growing, I would lean towards gluster on 2 boxes. I do that often, actually. A single MDS/OSS has zero redundancy, unless something is being done at harware level and that would help in availability.
NFS is quite viable too, but you would be splitting the available storage on 2 boxes.

Brian Andrus


On 10/30/2017 12:47 AM, Amjad Syed wrote:
Hello
We are in process in procuring one small Lustre filesystem giving us 120 TB  of storage using Lustre 2.X.
The vendor has proposed only 1 MDS and 1 OSS as a solution.
The query we have is that is this configuration enough , or we need more OSS?
The MDS and OSS server are identical  with regards to RAM (64 GB) and  HDD (300GB)

Thanks
Majid



_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org


_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org



_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org<mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20171030/bf8e4e82/attachment.html>