Papp Tamás wrote:
Jason Edgecombe wrote:
please give us more information about what you would like to accomplish.
Well, OK, but I'm sure, AFS is not for me.
There are a relatively small cluster, it's aroung ~10TB right now. It
has many type of directories, Some of them are static, they have only a
few changes, and also they are smalls one. And there are a Projects
directory with more directorries. These are the big ones and these can
grow up to the size 4-5-6 TB. Unfortunately I cannot split them to
different partitions (volumes) because I don't know, which part of it
will grow up.
You might also want to look at the number of files being stored in
a directory as there are some limitations there - with OpenAFS
the limit is roughly 30 - 32 K.
So AFS would be great, but at least it should handle bigger volumes than
2 TB.
This can be worked around fairly easily.
The advantage over Lustre will be the native Windows client (although I
still cannot disable crypt to speed up it) and kernel doesn't need any
3rd party patch.
Lustre is fast, but for us it's too fast and not so flexible as we would
like to see it.
I think you might want to look at your typical data
file sizes too - Lustre is great for large files but
doesn't seem to do well on small files. I've even seen
cases where OpenAFS outperforms Lustre depending on the
file mix.
Rich
Thanks for all,
tamas
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
--
Rich Sudlow
University of Notre Dame
Center for Research Computing
128 Information Technology Center
PO Box 539
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539
(574) 631-7258 office phone
(574) 631-9283 office fax
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
