[lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS

[Brian Andrus]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but that seems a bit large of 
an MDT. Of course drives these days are pretty good sized, so the extra 
is probably very inexpensive.

Also, isn't it better to have 1 OST per OSS for parallelism rather than 
adding OSTs to an OSS? I've been doing most of my OSTs as ZFS and 
letting that handle parallel writes across drives within an OSS, which 
has performed well.

Brian Andrus


On 10/30/2017 12:04 PM, Amjad Syed 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
>>     <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
>     <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/20171030/00725331/attachment.html>