Hi, Mark Hahn Very appreciate for your detailed reply. And sorry for the ambiguous description. For some reasons, we decided not to expand on the lustre filesystem already exists; so what I want to know is the number of lustre filesystems that a client can mount on the same time .
Best regards. Mark Hahn <h...@mcmaster.ca> 于2020年7月16日周四 下午3:00写道： > > On Jul 15, 2020, at 12:29 AM, ??? <guru.nov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is there a ceiling for a Lustre filesystem that can be mounted in a > cluster? > > It is very high, as Andreas said. > > >> If so, what's the number? > > The following contains specific limits: > > > https://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-manual//lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/lustre_manual.xhtml#idm140436304680016 > > You'll notice that you must assume some aspects of configuration, such as > the > size and number of your OSTs. I see OSTs in the range of 75-400TB (and OST > counts between 58 and 187). > > >> If not, how much is proper? > > Lustre is designed to scale. So a config with a small number of OSTs, > on very few OSSes doesn't make that much sense. OSTs are pretty much > expected to be decent-sized RAIDs. There would be tradeoffs among cost- > efficient disk sizes (maybe 16T today) and RAID overhead (usually N+2), > and how that trades off with bandwidth (HBA and OSS network). > > >> Does mount multiple filesystems can affect the stability of each file > system or cause other problems? > > My experience is that the main factor in reliability is device count, > rather than how the devices are organized. For instance, if you > have more OSSes, you may get linearly nicer performance, but > you also increase your chance of having components crash or fail. > > The main reason for separate filesystems is usually that the MDS > (maybe MTD) can be a bottleneck. But you can scale MDSes, instead. > > regards, mark hahn. >
_______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
