Le 19/12/2012 18:36, Jason Brooks a écrit : > Hello, > > I am building a 2.3.x filesystem right now, and I am looking at setting up > some active-active > failover abilities to my oss's. I have been looking at Dell's md3xxx arrays, > as they have redundant > controllers, and allow up to four hosts to connect to each controller. > > I can see how linux multi-path can be used with redundant disk controllers. I > can even (slightly) > understand how lustre fails over when an oss goes down. > > 1. Is lustre smart enough to use redundant paths, or failover oss's if an > oss is congested? (it > would be cool, no?) > 2. Does the linux multi-path module slow performance? > 3. How much does a raid array such as the one listed above act as a > bottleneck, say if I have as > many volumes available on the raid controllers as there are oss hosts? > 4. Are there arrays similar to Dell's model that would work?
I'm using 1 dell MD3660F on lustre (60x3to) disk and also nec sgi ibm netapp-lsi this the same hardware (netapp 2660 ;-) on 1.8.8wc1 and IB 2 diskrack are in production for more than one year now without any problem we ave now 5 rack like this + 2 jbod extension with 60 disk connected - each jbod connected to one primary rack with Hyper perf license controllers do peak performance 2Go/s write on 6 raid6 8+2 to achieve this we used 3 server connected directly to diskrack with two FC ports over IB each server with 2 OST on the rack write caching is disable ( cache mirror divide perf by two ) we work with 4 or 6 OST by OSS on production ( sufficient for our need ) failover per oss pair ( not on congestion only when an oss goes down ) I didn't notice many penalty with multipath ( active/passive mode for this material ) -- Weill Philippe - Administrateur Systeme et Reseaux CNRS/UPMC/IPSL LATMOS (UMR 8190) Email:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
