Shawn,
In my opinion you shouldn't be running corosync on any more than two
machines. They should be configured in self contained pairs (mds pair,
oss pairs). Anything beyond that would be chaos to manage, even if it
worked. Don't forget the stonith portion. Not every block storage
implementation respects mmp protection.
--Jeff
On 10/19/12 9:52 AM, Hall, Shawn wrote:
Hi,
We’re setting up fairly large Lustre 2.1.2 filesystems, each with 18
nodes and 159 resources all in one Corosync/Pacemaker cluster as
suggested by our vendor. We’re getting mixed messages on how large of
a Corosync/Pacemaker cluster will work well between our vendor an others.
1.Are there Lustre Corosync/Pacemaker clusters out there of this size
or larger?
2.If so, what tuning needed to be done to get it to work well?
3.Should we be looking more seriously into splitting this
Corosync/Pacemaker cluster into pairs or sets of 4 nodes?
Right now, our current configuration takes a long time to start/stop
all resources (~30-45 mins), and failing back OSTs puts a heavy load
on the cib process on every node in the cluster. Under heavy IO load,
the many of the nodes will show as “unclean/offline” and many OST
resources will show as inactive in crm status, despite the fact that
every single MDT and OST is still mounted in the appropriate place. We
are running 2 corosync rings, each on a private 1 GbE network. We have
a bonded 10 GbE network for the LNET.
Thanks,
Shawn
___
Lustre-discuss mailing list
Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
--
--
Jeff Johnson
Co-Founder
Aeon Computing
jeff.john...@aeoncomputing.com
www.aeoncomputing.com
t: 858-412-3810 x101 f: 858-412-3845
m: 619-204-9061
/* New Address */
4170 Morena Boulevard, Suite D - San Diego, CA 92117
___
Lustre-discuss mailing list
Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
