The vendor has proposed a single MDT ( 4 * 1.2 TB) in RAID 10 configuration. The OST will be RAID 6 and proposed are 2 OST.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ben Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > How many OST's are behind that OSS? How many MDT's behind the MDS? > > From: lustre-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf > of Brian Andrus <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:24 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] 1 MDS and 1 OSS > > Hmm. That is an odd one from a quick thought... > > However, IF you are planning on growing and adding OSSes/OSTs, this is not > a bad way to get started and used to how everything works. It is basically > a single stripe storage. > > If you are not planning on growing, I would lean towards gluster on 2 > boxes. I do that often, actually. A single MDS/OSS has zero redundancy, > unless something is being done at harware level and that would help in > availability. > NFS is quite viable too, but you would be splitting the available storage > on 2 boxes. > > Brian Andrus > > > > On 10/30/2017 12:47 AM, Amjad Syed wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > lustre-discuss mailing > [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
