Andreas, Thank you for your email. The interconnect proposed by Vendor is Infiniband FDR , 56 GB/s. Each MDS and OSS will have only FDR Card. This Lustre will be used to run Life Sciences/Bioinformatics/genomics applications .
Will single OSS handle FDR interconnect.? On 30 Oct 2017 4:56 p.m., "Dilger, Andreas" <[email protected]> wrote: > First, to answer Amjad's question - the number of OSS nodes you have > depends > on the capacity and performance you need. For 120TB of total storage > (assume 30x4TB drives, or 20x60TB drives) a single OSS is definitely > capable of handling this many drives. I'd also assume you are using 10Gb > Ethernet (~= 1GB/s), which a single OSS should be able to saturate (at > either 40MB/s or 60MB/s per data drive with RAID-6 8+2 LUNs). If you want > more capacity or bandwidth, you can add more OSS nodes now or in the future. > > As Ravi mentioned, with a single OSS and MDS, you will need to reboot the > single server in case of failures instead of having automatic failover, but > for some systems this is fine. > > Finally, as for whether Lustre on a single MDS+OSS is better than running > NFS on a single server, that depends mostly on the application workload. > NFS is easier to administer than Lustre, and will provide better small file > performance than Lustre. NFS also has the benefit that it works with every > client available. > > Interestingly, there are some workloads that users have reported to us > where a single Lustre OSS will perform better than NFS, because Lustre does > proper data locking/caching, while NFS has only close-to-open consistency > semantics, and cannot cache data on the client for a long time. Any > workloads where there are multiple writers/readers to the same file will > just not function properly with NFS. Lustre will handle a large number of > clients better than NFS. For streaming IO loads, Lustre is better able to > saturate the network (though for slower networks this doesn't really make > much difference). Lustre can drive faster networks (e.g. IB) much better > with LNet than NFS with IPoIB. > > And of course, if you think your performance/capacity needs will increase > in the future, then Lustre can easily scale to virtually any size and > performance you need, while NFS will not. > > In general I wouldn't necessarily recommend Lustre for a single MDS+OSS > installation, but this depends on your workload and future plans. > > Cheers, Andreas > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 15:59, E.S. Rosenberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Maybe someone can answer this in the context of this question, is there > any performance gain over classic filers when you are using only a single > OSS? > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Ravi Konila <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Majid > > > > It is better to go for HA for both OSS and MDS. You would need 2 nos of > MDS and 2 nos of OSS (identical configuration). > > Also use latest Lustre 2.10.1 release. > > > > Regards > > Ravi Konila > > > > > >> From: Amjad Syed > >> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:17 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS > >> > >> Hello > >> We are in process in procuring one small Lustre filesystem giving us > 120 TB of storage using Lustre 2.X. > >> The vendor has proposed only 1 MDS and 1 OSS as a solution. > >> The query we have is that is this configuration enough , or we need > more OSS? > >> The MDS and OSS server are identical with regards to RAM (64 GB) and > HDD (300GB) > >> > >> Thanks > >> Majid > > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Lustre Principal Architect > Intel Corporation > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
