[Beowulf] Compute Node OS on Local Disk vs. Ram Disk
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.
Jon Forrest jlforrest at berkeley.eduSun Sep 28 21:44:08 PDT 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] mpich vs hp mpi performance
- Next message: [Beowulf] Compute Node OS on Local Disk vs. Ram Disk
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
There are two philosophies on where a compute node's OS and basic utilities should be located: 1) On a local harddrive 2) On a RAM disk I'd like to start a discussion on the positives and negatives of each approach. I'll throw out a few. Both approaches require that a compute node "distribution" be maintained on the frontend machine. In both cases it's important to remember to make any changes to this distribution rather than just using "pdsh" or "tentakel" to dynamically modify a compute node. This is so that the next time the compute node boots, it gets the uptodate distribution. Although the mechanism for maintaining the distribution varies in either approach, I consider this a push since one mechanism isn't inherently better than the other. Assuming the actual OS image is the same in both cases, #2 clearly requires more memory than #1. There are actually two approaches to #2 - a) where only the OS and other stuff necessary to boot the system are kept in memory and everything else is in an NFS-mounted file system, and b) where the whole OS installation is kept in memory. Depending on which approach is taken, the RAM-based installations can take hundreds of MB more than a local harddrive installation. However, on a modern multicore compute node this might just be a few percent of the total RAM on the node. Long ago not installing a local harddrive saved a considerable about of money but this isn't true anymore. Systems that need to page (or swap) will require a harddrive anyway since paging over the network isn't fast enough so very few compute nodes will be running diskless. Approach #2 requires much less time when a node is installed, and a little less time when a node is booted. What are some of your favorite issues, positive or negative, with each approach? Cordially, -- Jon Forrest Research Computing Support College of Chemistry 173 Tan Hall University of California Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1460 510-643-1032 jlforrest at berkeley.edu
- Previous message: [Beowulf] mpich vs hp mpi performance
- Next message: [Beowulf] Compute Node OS on Local Disk vs. Ram Disk
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
