> Cons: no multi-port access to disks prevents failover Just to expand a little: Afaik, Thumper is essentially a bunch of disks plus a single server node integrated into a fairly compact rackmount unit. The disks are only visible to the integrated node so if that node goes down, hangs or whatever, access to those disks is lost. To create a Lustre configuration today that can survive the loss of a server node you need more than one node with a physical connection to the disks, and for that you need some sort of dual-ported scsi/sas raid box or fiber channel san or similar.
-----Original Message----- From: Andreas Dilger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 October 2007 21:42 To: Mertol Ozyoney Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Help needed for an upcoming HPC project On Oct 21, 2007 20:49 +0300, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: > . I know that some installiations have used Sun thumper X4500's , > I'd like to learn pro's of cons of using Sun X4500's Pros: will be a good platform for ZFS, and is also very good with Linux software RAID 5 + Lustre (used at existing sites). Cons: no multi-port access to disks prevents failover > . If I use X4500 how can I provide redundancy ? What happens if a > node fails and how can I restore the node ? There is currently no Lustre-level redundancy. The Server Network Striping feature will replicate data at the Lustre OST level, but this will not be available for some time. > . What are the supported backup applications ? (Veritas, legato > etc..) Can we use incremantal backups on lustre ? You can use any filesystem-level backup tool that runs on the clients. I'm not sure what you mean by being able to do incremental backups, as I'd expect that to be a function of the backup tool? Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Software Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
