Jeff, We intend to use 10 clients that will mount the file system. Amjad
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Jeff Johnson < jeff.john...@aeoncomputing.com> wrote: > Amjad, > > You might ask your vendor to propose a single MDT comprised of (8 * 500GB) > 2.5" disk drives or better, SSDs. With some bio applications you would > benefit from spreading the MDT I/O across more drives. > > How many clients to you expect to mount the file system? A standard filer > (or ZFS/NFS server) will perform well compared to Lustre until you > bottleneck somewhere in the server hardware (net, disk, cpu, etc), with > Lustre you can add simply add one or more OSS/OSTs to the file system and > performance potential increases by the number of additional OSS/OST servers. > > High-availability is nice to have but it isn't necessary unless your > environment cannot tolerate any interruption or downtime. If your vendor > proposes quality hardware these cases are infrequent. > > --Jeff > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Amjad Syed <amjad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 <bev...@cray.com> wrote: >> >>> How many OST's are behind that OSS? How many MDT's behind the MDS? >>> >>> From: lustre-discuss <lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org> on >>> behalf of Brian Andrus <toomuc...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:24 PM >>> To: "lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org" <lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org> >>> 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 >>> listlustre-discuss@lists.lustre.orghttp://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lustre-discuss mailing list >>> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org >>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lustre-discuss mailing list >> lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------ > Jeff Johnson > Co-Founder > Aeon Computing > > jeff.john...@aeoncomputing.com > www.aeoncomputing.com > t: 858-412-3810 x1001 <(858)%20412-3810> f: 858-412-3845 > <(858)%20412-3845> > m: 619-204-9061 <(619)%20204-9061> > > 4170 Morena Boulevard, Suite D - San Diego, CA 92117 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=4170+Morena+Boulevard,+Suite+D+-+San+Diego,+CA+92117&entry=gmail&source=g> > > High-Performance Computing / Lustre Filesystems / Scale-out Storage >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org