Hi As tastes vary, I would not partition it so much for the backend. Assuming there is little to nothing overhead on the CPU at PHYP level, which it depends. On the protocols nodes, due the CTDB keeping locks together across all nodes (SMB), you would get more performance on bigger & less number of CES nodes than more and smaller.
Certainly a 822 is quite a server if we go back to previous generations but I would still keep a simple backend (NSd servers), simple CES (less number of nodes the merrier) & then on the client part go as micro partitions as you like/can as the effect on the cluster is less relevant in the case of resources starvation. But, it depends on workloads, SLA and money so I say try, establish a baseline and it fills the requirements, go for it. If not change till does. Have fun From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> Date: 24/04/2017 15:21 Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Used virtualization technologies for GPFS/Spectrum Scale Sent by: [email protected] Hi Jonathan todays hardware is so powerful that imho it might make sense to split a CEC into more "piece". For example the IBM S822L has up to 2x12 cores, 9 PCI3 slots ( 4×16 lans & 5×8 lan ). I think that such a server is a little bit to big just to be a single NSD server. Note that i use for each GPFS service a dedicated node. So if i would go for 4 NSD server, 6 protocol nodes and 2 tsm backup nodes and at least 3 test server a total of 11 server is needed. Inhm 4xS822L could handle this and a little bit more quite well. Of course blade technology could be used or 1U server. With kind regards Hajo -- Unix Systems Engineer MetaModul GmbH +49 177 4393994 -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Jonathan Buzzard Datum:2017.04.24 13:14 (GMT+01:00) An: gpfsug main discussion list Betreff: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Used virtualization technologies for GPFS/Spectrum Scale On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 12:28 +0200, Hans-Joachim Ehlers wrote: > @All > > > does anybody uses virtualization technologies for GPFS Server ? If yes > what kind and why have you selected your soulution. > > I think currently about using Linux on Power using 40G SR-IOV for > Network and NPIV/Dedidcated FC Adater for storage. As a plus i can > also assign only a certain amount of CPUs to GPFS. ( Lower license > cost / You pay for what you use) > > > I must admit that i am not familar how "good" KVM/ESX in respect to > direct assignment of hardware is. Thus the question to the group > For the most part GPFS is used at scale and in general all the components are redundant. As such why you would want to allocate less than a whole server into a production GPFS system in somewhat beyond me. That is you will have a bunch of NSD servers in the system and if one crashes, well the other NSD's take over. Similar for protocol nodes, and in general the total file system size is going to hundreds of TB otherwise why bother with GPFS. I guess there is currently potential value at sticking the GUI into a virtual machine to get redundancy. On the other hand if you want a test rig, then virtualization works wonders. I have put GPFS on a single Linux box, using LV's for the disks and mapping them into virtual machines under KVM. JAB. -- Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk Fife, United Kingdom. _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss Ellei edellä ole toisin mainittu: / Unless stated otherwise above: Oy IBM Finland Ab PL 265, 00101 Helsinki, Finland Business ID, Y-tunnus: 0195876-3 Registered in Finland
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
