<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><br></td><td valign="top"><br></td>
<td><strong>Size:</strong></td><td>3.2<small> k</small></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellspacing="5" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td id="rbodyEntireMsgList">
<div class="PrivateMsgDiv"><pre>Hey Brian,<br><br>Thanks so much for the prompt response, I do have a couple of questions for<br>clarification:<br><br>Does the hardware makeup of the OSS affect the speed of the OSTs? If so,<br>
what is likely to be the bottleneck in an OSS.<br><br>Say we have an OSS with 3 OSTs attatched, is that different than having<br>three OSSs with 1 OST apiece?<br><br>Also, does the OSS have as much of a performance impact as the speed of the<br>
OST. What is the recommended max number of OSTs per OSS?<br><br>If I am able to determine the max capabilities of an OST/OSS is it safe to<br>assume that the increase in performance scales linearly as I increase the<br>number of OSS/OSTs?<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>--Mark T.</pre></div></td></tr></tbody></table><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Brian J. Murrell <<a href="mailto:Brian.Murrell@sun.com">Brian.Murrell@sun.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 14:22 -0400, Mark True wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hello!<br>
<br>
Hi.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> A> If increasing the number of OSTs increases throughput, is there a<br>
> relationship that can be used to determine how many OSTs we're likely<br>
> to need at the outset to establish a baseline minimum throughput.<br>
<br>
</div>Of course.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> For examples, if I want to get 3GB sustained throughput how many OSTs<br>
> will facilitate this.<br>
<br>
</div>That is _completely_ dependent on your hardware configuration. If you<br>
are adding an "identical" (to an existing) OSTs you can simply use the<br>
speed of the existing OST to determine how much more the new OST will<br>
add. But be very careful of ceilings. You can of course only add so<br>
many OSTs before you start to hit other resource limitations such as bus<br>
bandwidth in the OSS and network bandwidth of the OSS's interconnect,<br>
etc. In short, you need to understand the performance capability of all<br>
of your components to come up with an overall design that meets your<br>
performance goals and scales to future goals.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> B> Does the MGS and MDS have to be separate for best performance, or<br>
> can they be consolidated into one server without causing too much<br>
> hardship<br>
<br>
</div>I'd tend to say that most people put them into the same server. For<br>
anything but "toy" installations however, we strongly suggest you put<br>
the MGS and MDT on separate devices.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> C> Right now I am looking at a model where I am connecting all the<br>
> OSTs, and the MDS/MGS together using infiniband,<br>
<br>
</div>Just to keep the nomenclature straight, an OST is a device (i.e. a disk)<br>
in/attached to an OSS. An OSS is the server that serves OSTs.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> and connecting the storage via fibrechannel. Is this the ideal<br>
> solution or am I going in the wrong direction.<br>
<br>
</div>That sounds suitable.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
b.<br>
<br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lustre-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org">Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>