I agree with Luis -- why so many nodes? """ 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. """
If this is your whole cluster, why not just 3x P822L/P812L running single partition per node, hosting a cluster of 3x protocol-nodes that does both direct FC for disk access, and also run backups on same nodes ? No complications, full hw performance. Then separate node for test, or separate partition on same nodes with dedicated adapters. But back to your original question. My experience is that LPAR/NPIV works great, but it's a bit annoying having to also have VIOs. Hope we'll get FC SR-IOV eventually.. Also LPAR/Dedicated-adapters naturally works fine. VMWare/RDM can be a challenge in some failure situations. It likes to pause VMs in APD or PDL situations, which will affect all VMs with access to it :-o VMs without direct disk access is trivial. -jf On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Luis Bolinches <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <+49%20177%204393994> > > > -------- 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 > >
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
