Archives


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

[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.

Search

Douglas Eadline deadline at eadline.org
Tue Sep 30 06:17:03 PDT 2008


Good point about swap. I often try an make the distinction
that diskless booting (provisioning) does not require
diskless nodes. That is, it is perfectly reasonable to
use a centralized provisioning method and yet have HDD's
on compute nodes -- if you need them. In the case where
swap and local scratch space are needed this makes sense.
(As long as the disks don't start collecting
any cluster state on them)

--
Doug


> Hi,
>
> Am 29.09.2008 um 12:27 schrieb Alan Ward:
>
>> Ram disks, definately. ;-)
>>
>> Afraid I'm still going with diskless nodes. You save
>>
>> 1. some money on the disks themselves
>> 2. more money on solving disk failures
>>
> this highly depends on the used applications. Quantum chemistry code
> like Gaussian03 or Molcas would run much slower, when all  scratch
> files would be written to NFS instead of a local disk. We even use
> two or three stripped disks in the nodes.
>
> As the disk is in the node because of our applications anyway, I also
> put the OS there.
>
> -- Reuti
>
>>
>> 3. yet more money on cooling
>>
>> This may be specially important in a high-density rack situation,
>> where if you get the disks out of the way each box can get more
>> ventilators up front as well as in the rear.
>>
>> On the other hand, Windows Vista has had its uses(!), such as
>> driving RAM prices down as demand expands ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org on behalf of Jon Forrest
>> Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 6:44 AM
>> To: Beowulf Mailing List
>> Subject: [Beowulf] Compute Node OS on Local Disk vs. Ram Disk
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>


--
Doug



More information about the Beowulf mailing list