On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Donald Becker wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
Guy Coates wrote:
At what node count does the nfs-root model start to break down?
Does anyone
have any rough numbers with the number of clients you can support
with a generic
linux NFS server vs a
On Dec 13, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Eric Shook wrote:
Thank you for commenting on this Greg. I might look deeper into
perceus as an option if rhel (and particularly variants as in
Scientific Linux) work well.
Yes, we already have Centos and Caos 23 base images that most people
are using for
Donald Becker wrote:
Is that server open-source/free software, or part of Sycld's product? No
judgement implied, I'm just interested to know if I can download and
learn from it.
When I wrote the first implementation I expected that we would be
publishing it under the GPL or a similar open
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Simon Kelley wrote:
Donald Becker wrote:
It should repeat this: forking a dozen processes sounds like a good idea.
Thinking about forking a thousand (we plan every element to scale to at
least 1000) makes 1 seem like a much better idea.
With one continuously
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Joe Landman wrote:
Guy Coates wrote:
At what node count does the nfs-root model start to break down? Does
anyone
have any rough numbers with the number of clients you can support with a
generic
linux NFS server vs a dedicated NAS filer?
If you use warewulf or
Donald Becker wrote:
I'm not quite following here: It seems like you might be advocating
retransmits every half second. I'm current doing classical exponential
backoff, 1 second delay, then two, then four etc. Will that bite me?
Where are you you doing exponential back-off?
re-transmits
On Dec 9, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Eric Shook wrote:
Not to diverge this conversation, but has anyone had any experience
using this pxe boot / nfs model with a rhel variant? I have been
wanting to do a nfs root or ramdisk model for some-time but our
software stack requires a rhel base so Scyld
Donald Becker wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Simon Kelley wrote:
Joe Landman wrote:
I would hazard that any DHCP/PXE type install server would struggle
with 2000 requests (yes- you arrange the power switching and/or
reboots to stagger at N second intervals).
Those that have talked to me
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Simon Kelley wrote:
Donald Becker wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Simon Kelley wrote:
Joe Landman wrote:
I would hazard that any DHCP/PXE type install server would struggle
with 2000 requests (yes- you arrange the power switching and/or
reboots to stagger at N second
Thank you for commenting on this Greg. I might look deeper into perceus
as an option if rhel (and particularly variants as in Scientific Linux)
work well. Our infrastructure will most likely include nfs-root,
possibly hybrid and full-install. So if Perceus can support it with a
few simple
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Will
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:15 PM
To: Eric Shook; Buccaneer for Hire.
Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org
Subject: RE: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless compute nodes
Scyld CW4 is based on RHEL4
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Eric Shook
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:28 AM
To: Buccaneer for Hire.
Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless compute nodes
Not to diverge this conversation, but has anyone had any experience
using this pxe boot
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Will
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:15 PM
To: Eric Shook; Buccaneer for Hire.
Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org
Subject: RE: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless compute nodes
Scyld CW4 is based on RHEL4 and also supported on Centos 4. That does
not give
sure he would not mind if you where to contact him
directly.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Eric Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:27 AM
To: Michael Will
Cc: Buccaneer for Hire.; beowulf@beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless
@beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless compute nodes
Michael,
This should be sufficient enough to run our software stack as they are
tested on rhel 4 variants. I will most definitely look closer at scyld
CW4 to see if it fits our needs.
What does reimplementing pxe boot
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Simon Kelley wrote:
Joe Landman wrote:
I would hazard that any DHCP/PXE type install server would struggle
with 2000 requests (yes- you arrange the power switching and/or
reboots to stagger at N second intervals).
Those that have talked to me about this topic know
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Mark Hahn wrote:
I would hazard that any DHCP/PXE type install server would struggle with
2000 requests
a single server (implying 1 gb nic?) might have trouble with the tftp part,
but I don't see why you couldn't scale up by splitting the tftp part
off to multiple
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Eric Shook
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:28 AM
To: Buccaneer for Hire.
Cc: beowulf@beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] SATA II - PXE+NFS - diskless compute nodes
Not to diverge this conversation, but has anyone had any experience
We configure clusters for our customers with Scyld Beowulf which does
not nfs-mount
root but rather just nfs-mounts the home directories because of its
particular lightweight
compute node model, (PXE booting into RAM) and so does not run into the
typical
nfs-root scalability issues.
Joe Landman wrote:
Guy Coates wrote:
At what node count does the nfs-root model start to break down? Does anyone
have any rough numbers with the number of clients you can support with a generic
linux NFS server vs a dedicated NAS filer?
If you use warewulf or the new perceus variant, it
[snip]
I agree with what Joe says about a few hundred nodes being the time you
would start to look closer at this approach.
I have started to explore the possibility of using this technology because I
would really like to see us with the ability to change OSs and OS Personalities
as
Not to diverge this conversation, but has anyone had any experience
using this pxe boot / nfs model with a rhel variant? I have been
wanting to do a nfs root or ramdisk model for some-time but our software
stack requires a rhel base so Scyld and Perceus most likely will not
work (although I
Thank you for writing...
With 2000+ nodes you should definitely look at remote power control, and
remote serial console access.
Have it already in place with remote monitoring as well.
Also you might think of separate install servers for each (say) 500
machines. Mirror them up to each
Eric Shook wrote:
Not to diverge this conversation, but has anyone had any experience
using this pxe boot / nfs model with a rhel variant? I have been
wanting to do a nfs root or ramdisk model for some-time but our
software stack requires a rhel base so Scyld and Perceus most likely
will not
particular lightweight
compute node model, (PXE booting into RAM) and so does not run into the
typical
nfs-root scalability issues.
I'm not sure I know what those would be. do you mean that the kernel code
for nfs-root has inappropriate timeouts or lacked effective retries?
At what node
I would hazard that any DHCP/PXE type install server would struggle with
2000 requests
a single server (implying 1 gb nic?) might have trouble with the tftp part,
but I don't see why you couldn't scale up by splitting the tftp part
off to multiple servers. I'd expect a single DHCP (no TFTP)
I personally like the idea of putting one admin server in each rack.
they don't have to be fancy servers, by any means.
*LOLOL* At first I was guilty of the one things I am always getting on the
other guys for-thinking too literally. I was going to say there is no room in
the rack. Of course,
Thanks Peter,
But do you mean that SATA is not a suitable choice for a beowulf cluster?
SATA is fine. You just have to be choosy about the SATA/SAS controller,
it's interesting that SAS advertising has obscured the fact that
SAS is just a further development of SCSI, and not interchangable
Mark Hahn wrote:
Thanks Peter,
But do you mean that SATA is not a suitable choice for a beowulf
cluster?
SATA is fine. You just have to be choosy about the SATA/SAS controller,
it's interesting that SAS advertising has obscured the fact that SAS is
just a further development of SCSI, and
Geoff Jacobs wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
it's interesting that SAS advertising has obscured the fact that SAS is
just a further development of SCSI, and not interchangable
with SATA. for instance, no SATA controller will support any SAS disk,
and any SAS setup uses a form of encapsulation to
Thanks Peter,
But do you mean that SATA is not a suitable choice for a beowulf cluster?
On 12/5/06, Peter Kjellstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 08:34, Ruhollah Moussavi Baygi wrote:
Hi All at Beowulf !
There are some questions about implementation of a Beowulf
Ruhollah Moussavi Baygi wrote:
Thanks Peter,
But do you mean that SATA is not a suitable choice for a beowulf cluster?
SATA is fine. You just have to be choosy about the SATA/SAS controller,
and be mindful of reliability issues with desktop drives.
--
Geoffrey D. Jacobs
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 07:11, Ruhollah Moussavi Baygi wrote:
Thanks Peter,
But do you mean that SATA is not a suitable choice for a beowulf cluster?
huh? Both me and Mark relied almost identically. Pointing out that the
controller (motherboard SATA or add-on raid-controller) is what you
Hi All at Beowulf !
There are some questions about implementation of a Beowulf cluster:
1-Regarding OS, is Fedora Core 64bit a good option for AMD Athlon 64 X2
4200+?
2- Is SATA II HDD compatible with Fedora Core 64bit?
3- Concerning RAM, is 2 GB 800 MHz DDR2 sufficient?
Any other
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 08:34, Ruhollah Moussavi Baygi wrote:
Hi All at Beowulf !
There are some questions about implementation of a Beowulf cluster:
1-Regarding OS, is Fedora Core 64bit a good option for AMD Athlon 64 X2
4200+?
You'll have to upgrade to a later fedora core after a
1-Regarding OS, is Fedora Core 64bit a good option for AMD Athlon 64 X2
4200+?
sure. distros are just desktop decoration, and anything recent will
perform equally well. you do probably want 64b, but that's not rare.
2- Is SATA II HDD compatible with Fedora Core 64bit?
disks don't have
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 12:07:36PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
1-Regarding OS, is Fedora Core 64bit a good option for AMD Athlon 64 X2
4200+?
sure. distros are just desktop decoration, and anything recent will
perform equally well. you do probably want 64b, but that's not rare.
Think
37 matches
Mail list logo
