Mark Hahn wrote: >> It seems an external fibre >> or SAS raid is needed, >> > > to be precise, a redundant-path SAN is needed. you could do it with > commodity disks and Gb, or you can spend almost unlimited amounts on > gold-plated disks, FC switches, etc. > Many deployments are done without redundant paths, which offer additional insurance.
> the range of costs is really quite remarkable, I guess O(100x). > compare this to cars where even VERY nice production cars are only > a few times more expensive than the most cost-effective ones. > You're comparing two mass-market cars: there is a nearly 1000x difference in price between a cheap dune buggy and a Bugatti, but both provide transportation for 1-2 people. >> as the idea of loosing the file system if one >> node goes down doesn't seem good, even if temporary. >> The clients should just hang on the file system until the server is again available. This is not so different from using NFS with hard mounts. Note that even with failover, the Lustre file system will be down for several minutes, as the HA package has to first detect a problem, and then safely startup Lustre on the backup server, and then Lustre recovery has to occur. > how often do you expect nodes to fail, and why? > > regards, mark hahn. > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
