Hi All,

As those of you who suffered thru my talk at SC18 already know, we’re really 
short on space on one of our GPFS filesystems as the output of mmdf piped to 
grep pool shows:

Disks in storage pool: system (Maximum disk size allowed is 24 TB)
(pool total)           4.318T                                1.078T ( 25%)      
  79.47G ( 2%)
Disks in storage pool: data (Maximum disk size allowed is 262 TB)
(pool total)           494.7T                                38.15T (  8%)      
  4.136T ( 1%)
Disks in storage pool: capacity (Maximum disk size allowed is 519 TB)
(pool total)           640.2T                                14.56T (  2%)      
  716.4G ( 0%)

The system pool is metadata only.  The data pool is the default pool.  The 
capacity pool is where files with an atime (yes, atime) > 90 days get migrated. 
 The capacity pool is comprised of NSDs that are 8+2P RAID 6 LUNs of 8 TB 
drives, so roughly 58.2 TB usable space per NSD.

We have the new storage we purchased, but that’s still being tested and held in 
reserve for after the first of the year when we create a new GPFS 5 formatted 
filesystem and start migrating everything to the new filesystem.

In the meantime, we have also purchased a 60-bay JBOD and 30 x 12 TB drives and 
will be hooking it up to one of our existing storage arrays on Wednesday.  My 
plan is to create another 3 8+2P RAID 6 LUNs and present those to GPFS as NSDs. 
 They will be about 88 TB usable space each (because … beginning rant … a 12 TB 
drive is < 11 TB is size … and don’t get me started on so-called “4K” TV’s … 
end rant).

A very wise man who used to work at IBM but now hangs out with people in red 
polos (<grin>) once told me that it’s OK to mix NSDs of slightly different 
sizes in the same pool, but you don’t want to put NSDs of vastly different 
sizes in the same pool because the smaller ones will fill first and then the 
larger ones will have to take all the I/O.  I consider 58 TB and 88 TB to be 
pretty significantly different and am therefore planning on creating yet 
another pool called “oc” (over capacity if a user asks, old crap internally!) 
and migrating files with an atime greater than, say, 1 year to that pool.  But 
since ALL of the files in the capacity pool haven’t even been looked at in at 
least 90 days already, does it really matter?  I.e. should I just add the NSDs 
to the capacity pool and be done with it?

If it’s a good idea to create another pool, then I have a question about 
mmapplypolicy and migrations.  I believe I understand how things work, but 
after spending over an hour looking at the documentation I cannot find anything 
that explicitly confirms my understanding … so if I have another pool called oc 
that’s ~264 TB in size and I write a policy file that looks like:

define(access_age,(DAYS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) - DAYS(ACCESS_TIME)))

RULE 'ReallyOldStuff'
  MIGRATE FROM POOL 'capacity'
  TO POOL 'oc'
  LIMIT(98)
  SIZE(KB_ALLOCATED/NLINK)
  WHERE ((access_age > 365) AND (KB_ALLOCATED > 3584))

RULE 'OldStuff'
  MIGRATE FROM POOL 'data'
  TO POOL 'capacity'
  LIMIT(98)
  SIZE(KB_ALLOCATED/NLINK)
  WHERE ((access_age > 90) AND (KB_ALLOCATED > 3584))

Keeping in mind that my capacity pool is already 98% full, is mmapplypolicy 
smart enough to calculate how much space it’s going to free up in the capacity 
pool by the “ReallyOldStuff” rule and therefore be able to potentially also 
move a ton of stuff from the data pool to the capacity pool via the 2nd rule 
with just one invocation of mmapplypolicy?  That’s what I expect that it will 
do.  I’m hoping I don’t have to run the mmapplypolicy twice … the first to move 
stuff from capacity to oc and then a second time for it to realize, oh, I’ve 
got a much of space free in the capacity pool now.

Thanks in advance...

Kevin

P.S.  In case you’re scratching your head over the fact that we have files that 
people haven’t even looked at for months and months (more than a year in some 
cases) sitting out there … we sell quota in 1 TB increments … once they’ve 
bought the quota, it’s theirs.  As long as they’re paying us the monthly fee if 
they want to keep files relating to research they did during the George Bush 
Presidency out there … and I mean Bush 41, not Bush 43 ….then that’s their 
choice.  We do not purge files.

—
Kevin Buterbaugh - Senior System Administrator
Vanderbilt University - Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> - 
(615)875-9633



_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

Reply via email to