I had looked at it, but then, why?
There is no benefit using object storage when you are putting lustre
over top. It would bog down. Supposedly you would want to use CephFS
over the ceph storage. It talks directly to rados.
If you are able to enunciate the rados block devices, you should also be
able to send them directly as block devices (iSCSI at least) so lustre
is able to manage where the data is stored and use it's optimizing.
Otherwise the data can't be optimized. Lustre would THINK it knows where
it was, but the rados crush map would have put it somewhere else.
Just my 2cents.
Brian
On 2/21/2017 3:08 PM, Brock Palen wrote:
Has anyone ever ran Lustre OST's (and maybe MDT's) on Ceph Radios
Block Devices?
In theory this would work just like an SAN attached solution. Has
anyone ever done it before? I know we are seeing decent performance
from RBD on our system but I don't have a way to test lustre on it.
I'm looking at a future system where Ceph and Lustre might be needed
(Object and High performance HPC) but also not a huge budget to have
two full disk stacks. So an idea was to have lustre servers consume
Ceph Block devices, and that same cluster serves object requests.
Thoughts or prior art? This probably isn't that different than the
Cloud Formation script that uses EBS volumes if it works as intended.
Thanks
Brock Palen
www.umich.edu/~brockp <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ebrockp>
Director Advanced Research Computing - TS
XSEDE Campus Champion
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
(734)936-1985
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
