[Beowulf] Big storage
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.
Jakob Oestergaard jakob at unthought.netFri Aug 24 01:53:42 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Big storage
- Next message: [Beowulf] Big storage
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Jeff Blasius wrote: > Hello Jakob, > A couple of things... > 1. ClusterFS has an easy to understand calculation on why raid 6 is > necessary for the amount of disks you're considering. You do need to > plan for multi-disk failure, especially with the rebuild time of 1TB > disks. > http://manual.lustre.org/manual/LustreManual16_HTML/DynamicHTML-10-1.html#wp1037512 As Greg pointed out, if I can live with isolated filesystems (many small RAID sets), there's a lot of problems with very big arrays that won't affect this setup. That said, RAID 6 is probably very interesting to consider anyway. > 2. Avoid tape if you can. At this scale, the administrative time and > costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course if you need to move your > data to a secure vault that's another thing. If you really want to do > tape, some people choose to do disk > disk > tape. This eliminates the > read interrupts on the primary storage and provides some added > redundancy. So far I've been surprised at the number of people who (mainly privately) has told me to stay away from tape - that was unexpected, but interesting nonetheless :) > 3. We do use Nexsan's satabeasts for storage similar to this. Without > commenting on costs, the jackrabbit is technologically superior. > Thanks a lot for the comments! -- / jakob
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Big storage
- Next message: [Beowulf] Big storage
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
