My $0.02 below.
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 11:21 AM, E.S. Rosenberg
> wrote:
>
> 1. After my recent experience with failover I wondered is there any reason
> not to set all machines that are within reasonable cable range as potential
> failover nodes so that in the very unlikely event of both mach
For #2, I'd think having multiple MDTs would be the way to go. In normal
operation you have active-active MDSes. If you're buying all the hardware
anyway, there's no reason not to set it up to all be running under normal
circumstances.
-Ben Evans
From: lustre-discuss
mailto:lustre-discuss-b
I won’t try to answer all your questions (I’m not really qualified to opine),
but a quick one on ZFS:
ZFS today is still much slower for the MDT. It’s competitive on OSTs, arguably
better, depending on your needs and hardware. So a strong choice for a config
today would be ldiskfs MDTs and ZF
Hi everyone,
We are currently looking into upgrading/replacing our Lustre system with a
newer system.
I had several ideas I'd like to run by you and also some questions:
1. After my recent experience with failover I wondered is there any reason
not to set all machines that are within reasonable c
