[Beowulf] Suggestions to what DFS to use
Tony Brian Albers
tba at kb.dk
Tue Feb 14 04:57:55 PST 2017
On 2017-02-13 20:45, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
> On 02/13/17 14:00, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:55:43AM +0000, Tony Brian Albers wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> So, we're running a small(as in a small number of nodes(10), not
>>> storage(170TB)) hadoop cluster here. Right now we're on IBM Spectrum
>>> Scale(GPFS) which works fine and has POSIX support. On top of GPFS we
>>> have a GPFS transparency connector so that HDFS uses GPFS.
>> I don't understand the question. Hadoop comes with HDFS, and HDFS runs
>> happily on top of shared-nothing, direct-attach storage. Is there
>> something about your hardware or usage that makes this a non-starter?
>> If so, that might help folks make better suggestions.
> I'm guessing the "POSIX support" is the piece that's missing with a
> native HDFS installation. You can kinda-sorta get a form of it with
> plug-ins, but it's not a first-class citizen like in most DFS and when I
> used it last it was not performant. Native HDFS makes large datasets
> expensive to work with in anything but Hadoop-ready (largely MR)
> applications. If there is a mixed workload, having a filesystem that
> can support both POSIX access and HDFS /without/ copies is invaluable.
> With extremely large datasets (170TB is not that huge anymore), copies
> may be a non-starter. With dated codebases or applications that don't
> fit the MR model, complete movement to HDFS may also be a non-starter.
> The questions I feel need to be answered here to get good answers rather
> than a shotgun full of random DFS's are:
> 1. How much time and effort are you willing to commit to setup and
> administration of the DFS? For many completely open source solutions
> (Lustre and HDFS come to mind) setup and more critically maintenance can
> become quite heavyweight, and performance tuning can grow to
> summer-grad-student-internship level.
> 2. Are you looking to replace the hardware, or just the DFS? These
> days, 170 TB is at the fringes (IMHO) of what can fit reasonably into a
> single (albeit rather large) box. It wouldn't be completely unthinkable
> to run all of your storage with ZFS/BTRFS, a very beefy server,
> redundant 10, 25 or 40GE NICs, some SSD acceleration, a UPS, and
> plain-jane NFS (or your protocol of choice out of most Linux distros).
> You could even host the HDFS daemons on that node, pointing at POSIX
> paths rather than devices. But this falls into the category of "host it
> yourself," so that might be too much work.
> 3. How committed to HDFS are you (i.e., what features of it do your
> applications actually leverage)? Many map reduce applications actually
> have zero attachment to HDFS whatsoever. You can reasonably re-point
> them at posix-complaint NAS and they'll "just work." Plus you get
> cross-protocol access to the files without any wizardry, copying, etc.
> HBase is a notable example of where they've built dependence on HDFS
> into the code, but that's more the exception than the norm.
> Disclaimer: I work for Panasas, a storage appliance vendor. I don't
> think I'm shamelessly plugging anywhere above as I love when people host
> themselves, but it's not for everybody.
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
1) Pretty much whatever it takes. We have the mentioned cluster, a
second one running only hbase(for now) and the third is a storage
cluster for our DSpace installation which will probably grow to tens of
petabytes within a couple of years. To be able to use the same FS on all
would be nice. (yes I know, there's probably not a swiss-knife -but we
are willing to compromise)
2) Just the DFS (having issues with IBM support(not on the DFS alone)).
3) HBase. Doesn't work without HDFS AFAIK.
Systems administrator, IT-development
Royal Danish Library, Victor Albecks Vej 1, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Tel: +45 2566 2383 / +45 8946 2316
More information about the Beowulf