Archives


- Beowulf
- Beowulf Announce
- Scyld-users
- Beowulf on Debian

[Beowulf] Question on hgh performance, low cost Fileserver

Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.

Search

Paulo Afonso Lopes pal at di.fct.unl.pt
Mon Nov 14 02:30:29 PST 2005


GFS and GPFS are SAN-based. I do not have any experience with Lustre, but
it seems (at least in a supported - by the vendor - configuration) to be
based on a "back-end" SAN.

What you have to deal, using currently available solutions, is with this
kind of decisions:
- Do you rate availability/fault tolerance as important?
  If you do (why else would you say PVFS is not for home dirs?) you must
use a disk array based solution, either with an FC-SAN or NAS or iSCSI.

Then, you must choose your "file system" (not for the NAS option). You'll
have to decide if:
- You need "POSIX locking": if you do, you can't use PVFS
- You will want to support applications that both require high I/O
bandwidth and heavy file sharing (RW the same file): if you do, you must
exclude GFS, use GPFS in "data shipping mode" and modify your applications

(Note: you can have a resilient PVFS configuration if you use a SAN with
disk arrays instead of "internal" disks, and add some HA software - of
course, you can "transfer" disks manually, via command scripts, if you do
not want to use HA software)

You also need to put the "high cost" of a SAN into context: if you want to
move data at high speeds in a COTS (Gigabit Eth) LAN, you will consume all
the available CPU (e.g. around 40% of a 2.6GHz Xeon to reach around 80MB/s
sustained in one node). If you go for "fancy" interconnects (Infiniband,
Myrinet,...) you are in the same "cost territory" as FC/SANs

By NOT using "asymetrical" file systems (such as PVFS) and using "cluster
file systems" such as GFS or GPFS you may (depending on your requirements)
dispense with I/O nodes (client nodes on a SAN can directly access data)
alltogether...

I have never been involved in a large configuration like the one you're
planning to build, but I honestly think that you should go for a "mix" of
HA filesystem (e.g., GFS) for homes, etc. (mostly unshared file access)
and PVFS for the directories where files for HPC applications do live. I
don't think there is a single, currently available file system, that can
do both things well.

HTH

paulo


> We are looking into designing a low cost, high performance storage system.
> Requirements as below:
>
> - Starts at 3TB, should scale up by adding more servers to say 10-12TB
> - Use commodity technologies (x86_64, IB, GE, Linux), preferably all OSS
> components
> - Provide high I/O which scales with addition of storage nodes.
> - To be used for hosting user home dirs so reliability is important
> - The HPC cluster starts with 6 AMD64 nodes and is expected to scale to
> 1000+nodes in a year.
> - Preferably without FC/SAN
>
> We do have experience with IBM GPFS, PVFS (1,2), NetApps, PolyServe but
> not with GFS and LUSTRE.
>
> PVFS is not reliable enough for home dirs (OK for scratch), GPFS cannot
> do RAID5 like striping across nodes, needs SAN for RAID1 like
mirroring
> (cost $$$) , polyserve is too expensive (per CPU pricing)
>
> Is GFS or Lustre suitable for the above needs? Any other commercial
> slution?
>
--
Paulo Afonso Lopes                        | Tel: +351- 21 294 8536
Departamento de Informática               | 294 8300 ext.10763
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia        | Fax: +351- 21 294 8541
Universidade Nova de Lisboa               | e-mail: pal at di.fct.unl.pt
2829-516 Caparica, PORTUGAL




More information about the Beowulf mailing list