> If we do test this I'll let you know how it works. > Yes, please. I'm pretty curious about that.
> > Why Lustre on GPFS? Why not just run GPFS then given it support byte > range locking / MPI-IO and POSIX (Ignore license costs). > Sorry for confusion. I was just asking. I've never thought of that because of no performance advantage and going to be much more complex. Troubleshooting would be nightmare. > I'm trying to limit the number of disk systems to maintain in a system > of modest size where both MPI-IO and Object is required. I have > dedicated Lustre today for larger systems and they will stay that way. > Any researchers also are interested in Lustre on Ceph? Anyway let me know, once you become ready. > Was just curious if anyone tried this. > > > Brock Palen > www.umich.edu/~brockp > Director Advanced Research Computing - TS > XSEDE Campus Champion > [email protected] > (734)936-1985 > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Shinobu Kinjo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yeah, that's interesting. But that does not really make sense to use > Lustre. And should not be used for any computations. > > > > If anything goes wrong, troubleshooting would become nightmare. > > > > Have you ever thought of using Lustre on top of GPFS native client? > > > > Anyway if you are going to build Lustre on top of any RADOS client and > run MPI jobs, please share results. I'm really really interested in them. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Brian Andrus <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >> Director Advanced Research Computing - TS > >> XSEDE Campus Champion > >> [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 > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
