[Beowulf] Should I go for diskless or not?
jan.heichler at gmx.net
Thu May 14 11:23:16 PDT 2009
Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2009, meintest Du:
I have a cluster of identical computers. We are planning to add more nodes later. I was thinking whether I should go the diskless nodes way or not? Diskless nodes seems as a really exciting, interesting and good option, however when I did it I needed to troubleshoot a lot. I did fix it up, but I had to redo the filesystem, but the past experiences didn't make much of a difference. I still need to fix up everything, I kinda need your help to decide.
Also, performance wise, I was thinking that diskless is not a good option, and since performance matters . . .
Can somebody outline the pros and cons of each or just give me thier opinion.
Local disk allows you to have
- local cached version of the OS-Image (could lead to faster bootup - depends on the image size)
- local swap - can be used to suspend jobs and free the memory they are using by swapping it to disk. A newly started high-prio-job can then be started
- local scratch - might be useful for some jobs
- saves memory because you don't have to put some OS-image into RAM
- avoids network trafic (no NFS-Root, no /usr-mounts over NFS or such stuff... )
Local disk cons:
- it is a piece of hardware that can fail (might matter if you have a big number of nodes/disks)
- it costs money
I saw lately that a customer was using a Lustre-Filesystem for scratching (no big news, can be much faster than local disks) and to put swap-files on it. Might be a good compromise - but just if you have a lustre-environment anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beowulf