<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Hi list,<br>I know this question has been asked zillion times, but I'll ask it again, because as most lustre-builder wannabe, I'm worried about MDS being a bottleneck.<br>I'm planning to build a 60TB lustre install separated in two pools :<br>- one big / slow / cheap 50 TB archive based on Dell MD3000i+MD1000 RAID 5 OST with two cheap OSS in front of it<br>- one beefier (=smaller / faster / more expensive) 10 TB based on 2 servers being both OSS+OST each composed of 8 cores, 12 GB RAM, 8 NL SAS spindles RAID 10.<br>the big / slow archive is not really a problem but i'm asking myself about the smaller one, given the fact that this storage (if good enough in terms of performance) could double pretty soon by adding more OSS+OST<br>I've been planning to have one redundant MDS over 2 Dell R610 sharing a common sas-attached MD3000 RAID 10 MDT.<br>I've noticed that this array is not the best on the market for perf. but is rather good at $$...<br>I plan on connecting all this on DDR infiniband (along with the main clients -4 of them-).<br><br>So now for my questions about MDS :<br>- Should I do better having two lustre installs instead of a single install with two pools ?<br>- Should I consider buying a better array for MDT ?<br>- Should I be better using even beefier MDS with internal storage and DRBD ?<br><br>and about OSS : <br>- should I take "smaller" OSS+OST to improve perf ?<br>
- should I split my OST storage "inside" the OSSes for the 10GB storage pool ?<br><br>I'll be sooo grateful if someone could answer those, I'll be glad to provide any other details one would need to help me out.<br><br>Thanks.<br></div></body></html>