[lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS

[Amjad Syed]

Jeff,
We intend to use 10 clients that will mount the file system.

Amjad

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Jeff Johnson <
jeff.johnson at aeoncomputing.com> wrote:

> Amjad,
>
> You might ask your vendor to propose a single MDT comprised of (8 * 500GB)
> 2.5" disk drives or better, SSDs. With some bio applications you would
> benefit from spreading the MDT I/O across more drives.
>
> How many clients to you expect to mount the file system? A standard filer
> (or ZFS/NFS server) will perform well compared to Lustre until you
> bottleneck somewhere in the server hardware (net, disk, cpu, etc), with
> Lustre you can add simply add one or more OSS/OSTs to the file system and
> performance potential increases by the number of additional OSS/OST servers.
>
> High-availability is nice to have but it isn't necessary unless your
> environment cannot tolerate any interruption or downtime. If your vendor
> proposes quality hardware these cases are infrequent.
>
> --Jeff
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Amjad Syed <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> 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> on
>>> behalf of Brian Andrus <toomuchit at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:24 PM
>>> To: "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org" <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 listlustre-discuss at lists.lustre.orghttp://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> 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
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------
> Jeff Johnson
> Co-Founder
> Aeon Computing
>
> jeff.johnson at aeoncomputing.com
> www.aeoncomputing.com
> t: 858-412-3810 x1001 <(858)%20412-3810>   f: 858-412-3845
> <(858)%20412-3845>
> m: 619-204-9061 <(619)%20204-9061>
>
> 4170 Morena Boulevard, Suite D - San Diego, CA 92117
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4170+Morena+Boulevard,+Suite+D+-+San+Diego,+CA+92117&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> High-Performance Computing / Lustre Filesystems / Scale-out Storage
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20171031/91ae9c4f/attachment.html>