at the bottom of this page
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
Da Shi Cao <[email protected]> schrieb am 18.01.2017 13:45:38:
> Von: Da Shi Cao <[email protected]>
> An: 'xCAT Users Mailing list' <[email protected]>
> Datum: 18.01.2017 13:46
> Betreff: [xcat-user] 答复: statefull vs. stateless images
>
> Dear,
> How can I unsubscribe this mailing list?
> I’m so sorry to send you this mail.
> Regards,
> Dashi Cao
>
> 发件人: Jarrod Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
> 发送时间: 2017年1月13日 23:01
> 收件人: xCAT Users Mailing list <[email protected]>
> 主题: Re: [xcat-user] statefull vs. stateless images
>
> I think stateless makes a little less sense over time.
>
> 1. Local boot storage is cheaper and more durable than it used to
> be, and this is only going to get more extreme
> 2. Dynamism is probably better and more easily served by somethig
> like Singularity, which makes things easier for users to do their
> thing without the administrators having to accommodate.
> 3. Mitigating drift can be done in other ways. Stateless has
> traditionally had the side effect of mitigating accumulating ‘drift’
> as people do things ad-hoc to OS images, by punishing those
> practices. Strictly speaking the same discipline can be self-
> imposed without downside, it just takes some willpower.
>
> From: Damir Krstic [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:20 AM
> To: xCAT Users Mailing list
> Subject: [xcat-user] statefull vs. stateless images
>
> We have been running our cluster using stateless images for over 6
> years now. For the most part, things are running great. There are
> two reasons for our decision to run stateless:
> 1. our compute nodes originally did not have local hard drives
> 2. we envisioned a dynamic environment in which we would boot nodes
> frequently with different images to satisfy different research needs
>
> Today both of those points are invalid / do not apply. All of our
> compute nodes come with hard drives, and we have never really booted
> cluster with any images other than our "production" image. In
> addition, downtimes are really hard to come by in our environment,
> and we treat our cluster as production system.
>
> So, my question is, does it make sense to continue with stateless
> images, or would we be better served with statefull (installed on
> local disk) images.
>
> I question our today's method because:
> 1. stateless images are not trivial to build and update using
> genimage, putting mellanox drivers, gpfs etc. We don't do it often
> enough so every time we have to do it, we are re-inventing a wheel.
> 2. stateless images take up portion of compute node memory
>
> Are there any downsides to running a 700+ node cluster using
> statefull images? Like I said, we don't boot the cluster at all for
> many months at the time (we get a single downtime during the year),
> and most of the packages outside of normal RH installation are
> installed using postscripts.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Damir
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> xCAT-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
xCAT-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
