Hi John, On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:05:35PM -0500, John R. Dunning wrote:
> 1. Does it make sense to structure the OSS<->OST connections as point to > point links, or am I missing something? Absolutely. This is, in fact, our recommended configuration. Doing it this way is less complex and has fewer points of failure compared to a SAN-like solution. As you've probably figured out, the only thing Lustre requires is that storage be shared between two OSSes (and MDSes) for failover purposes. Since most FC controllers are (at least) dual-ported, this can be done without FC switches. > 2. Have you run into customer situations where they have an existing SAN that > they want to run lustre on? > > a. If yes, what issues are involved in configuring it to appear as a > bunch of disjoint luns and get lustre set up on it? > > b. If no, and they instead tend to buy dedicated storage for lustre, do > they still want to set it up like a SAN even though it isn't? Yes, and I'm not aware of any issues. SAN administrators are usually good at setting things like this up :) > 3. Starting from first principles, when talking about a new deployment, what > do you recommend, and why? Keep it as simple as possible - have as few components as you can. Not using FC switches fits well with this strategy. Also, create LUNs that are as close to the 8 TB limit as possible so you have fewer OSTs. In general, Lustre doesn't care about OST count, but this will make things slightly easier to manage and reduce your chances of running into full OST problems. Cheers, Jody > > > Thanks in advance, and I hope you're all home with family rather than reading > this list :-} > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss -- _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
