Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-27 Thread Karanbir Singh
Joe Barjo wrote:
 First GFS test on 6 nodes (with gnbd) were ok, but there had been 
 unexplained kernel panics (even when not working) that prevented further 
 tests.

Thats interesting to me, I've just recently been working with gfs - and 
using some of the newer kernels dont seem to have any issue of this 
nature. Are you sure its gfs and not gfs2 that you are using ?

Also, where you able to trace the panic's down the gfs code or is there 
something in the supporting cluster code causing issues perhaps ? 
cman/fence/clvm ?

- KB
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-26 Thread Joe Barjo
I'd also like to test gfs for a 30 nodes cluster with sge.
Tasks are often quite short, files are also quite small. Job rate can be
quite high (can reach 10 to 20/second)
We actualy use NFS under centos4.7 and experience coherency problems.
I tested AFS, lustre, glusterFS. All showed too much overhead with small
files, and less performance than nfs.

The coherency problem seems related to the ext3 timestamp resolution (1
second), and the poor NFS cache system. It is not coherent even with the
noac (no attribute cache option)

First GFS test on 6 nodes (with gnbd) were ok, but there had been
unexplained kernel panics (even when not working) that prevented further
tests.

I will try to upgrade the cluster to a more recent distribution and test GFS
on 30 nodes.


On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jens Larsson j...@nsc.liu.se wrote:

   Just curious if GFS can be used in a HPC environment, like GPFS or
   Oracle OCFS2?

  I don't think so. Comments from people in the HPC-business indicate that
  it doesn't scale to the number of nodes that typically forms these kinds
  of environments.
 
  NFS still rulez there, together with more (ISILON/Panasas) or less (SUN)
  specialized NFS-serving-gear.
  Rainer

 NFS (4.1) doesn't scale either. I would say that GPFS and Lustre is more
 usable than NFS in an HPC environment. You need a parallell file system
 when the data rates gets higher. But much depends on the I/O-profile of
 the jobs.

 /jens

 --
 Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN
 Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: j...@nsc.liu.se
 GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson j...@nsc.liu.se
 Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D  7A69 C965 2EE6  C541 D57F C21B  B2C7
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-26 Thread Rainer Duffner

Am 27.02.2009 um 01:44 schrieb Joe Barjo:

 I'd also like to test gfs for a 30 nodes cluster with sge.
 Tasks are often quite short, files are also quite small. Job rate  
 can be quite high (can reach 10 to 20/second)
 We actualy use NFS under centos4.7 and experience coherency problems.
 I tested AFS, lustre, glusterFS. All showed too much overhead with  
 small files, and less performance than nfs.

 The coherency problem seems related to the ext3 timestamp resolution  
 (1 second), and the poor NFS cache system. It is not coherent even  
 with the noac (no attribute cache option)

 First GFS test on 6 nodes (with gnbd) were ok, but there had been  
 unexplained kernel panics (even when not working) that prevented  
 further tests.

 I will try to upgrade the cluster to a more recent distribution and  
 test GFS on 30 nodes.



What's your NFS-server, BTW?



Rainer
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-26 Thread Joe Barjo
Each node is also an nfs server (centos 4.7)
One nfs server per user.
I think it is still nfsv3, I will consider upgrading to v4.


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.dewrote:


 Am 27.02.2009 um 01:44 schrieb Joe Barjo:

  I'd also like to test gfs for a 30 nodes cluster with sge.
  Tasks are often quite short, files are also quite small. Job rate
  can be quite high (can reach 10 to 20/second)
  We actualy use NFS under centos4.7 and experience coherency problems.
  I tested AFS, lustre, glusterFS. All showed too much overhead with
  small files, and less performance than nfs.
 
  The coherency problem seems related to the ext3 timestamp resolution
  (1 second), and the poor NFS cache system. It is not coherent even
  with the noac (no attribute cache option)
 
  First GFS test on 6 nodes (with gnbd) were ok, but there had been
  unexplained kernel panics (even when not working) that prevented
  further tests.
 
  I will try to upgrade the cluster to a more recent distribution and
  test GFS on 30 nodes.
 


 What's your NFS-server, BTW?



 Rainer
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-26 Thread Rainer Duffner

Am 27.02.2009 um 01:53 schrieb Joe Barjo:

 Each node is also an nfs server (centos 4.7)
 One nfs server per user.
 I think it is still nfsv3, I will consider upgrading to v4.



Problem is CentOS4.7.

You'll probably get an improvement with CentOS5.



Rainer
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-23 Thread Rainer Duffner
Marcelo M. Garcia schrieb:
 Hi.

 Just curious if GFS can be used in a HPC environment, like GPFS or 
 Oracle OCFS2?
   


I don't think so.
Comments from people in the HPC-business indicate that it doesn't scale
to the number of nodes that typically forms these kinds of environments.

NFS still rulez there, together with more (ISILON/Panasas) or less (SUN)
specialized NFS-serving-gear.




Rainer
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?

2009-02-23 Thread Jens Larsson
  Just curious if GFS can be used in a HPC environment, like GPFS or 
  Oracle OCFS2?

 I don't think so. Comments from people in the HPC-business indicate that 
 it doesn't scale to the number of nodes that typically forms these kinds 
 of environments.
 
 NFS still rulez there, together with more (ISILON/Panasas) or less (SUN) 
 specialized NFS-serving-gear.
 Rainer

NFS (4.1) doesn't scale either. I would say that GPFS and Lustre is more 
usable than NFS in an HPC environment. You need a parallell file system 
when the data rates gets higher. But much depends on the I/O-profile of 
the jobs.

/jens

-- 
Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN
Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: j...@nsc.liu.se
GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson j...@nsc.liu.se
Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D  7A69 C965 2EE6  C541 D57F C21B  B2C7___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos