I am looking to build out a fairly dense setup with nodes having 8 or so
SATA drive slots for about 6 TB per node (8x750GB). Initially plan to
have 6 of these nodes. Initial build out would have 30 TB or so.
Debating going for higher / lower density on either number of drives per
node, and / or size of individual drives. The long term plan is to
scale this out to potentially a PB or so. Stability / integrity is more
important than performance, but power and space usage are tight also. I
was wondering if anyone has dabbled with dense solution. I would even
consider building out 9 TB nodes, but not sure this is truly feasible.
If anyone has thoughts on this I would be very interested.
Thanks!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only comment on what I'd do - I don't run mogile (yet) and am
just observing. We have a similar, home grown system. I would go
for boxes with more disks if I were you. How much actual storage
would you be needing?
Marc
Javier Frias wrote:
Hello all,
At my company we've recently evaluated mogilefs and it seems to meet
our needs. (great piece of software btw ) We are now planning to build
out our prod configuration and are having issues deciding on a
hardware layout, so I'm looking for input from people that may have
used mogilefs in a similar way.
Basically, we will be using mogilefs for long term text and image
archiving, as well as low level image serving ( it will only be
feeding our CDN, so while there will be some performance issues, it
doesnt look to be now our primary concern since the system will only
be feeding the CDN and not taking the brunt of the traffic itself ),
but from time to time, we will run batch jobs that will fetch ten's of
thousands of items for reprocessing.
Main question is, do we do more hosts per disks, or more disks per
hosts.
Due to hardware standards ( self imposed, too many hosts to have to
worry about yet another hardware manufacturer ) I have the choice of
either a host that can handle two 750GB disks ( dell 860s or 1435's )
or a host that can handle 6 x 750GB disks ( dell 2950's ) for the
storage nodes. The difference in pricing is about 20% in favor of a 6
disk server solution, versus a 2 disks server solution. So is the
extra complexity worth it in terms of performance and redundancy? or
will i be shooting myself in the foot by having 3 X the number of
storage nodes? I'm planning a 3 copy policy for most of my files, and
will need approximate 5TB to start, so we are taking of at least 4 x 6
disks systems, or 10-12 2 disk systems.
Any input greatly appreciated.
As a side note, any real reason not to run the trackers on the storage
nodes? also, anyone have any pros cons on running mysql master/save
with InnoDB on DRBD versus running lets say mysql cluster?
thx
--
CSI Cardiff, I'd like to see that. They'd be measuring the velocity of a kebab!"
