<div dir="ltr"><div>Paul, thanks for the reply.</div><div>I would like to ask, if I may.
I rather like Glustre, but have not deployed it in HPC. I have heard a
few people comment about Gluster not working well in HPC. Would you be
willing to be more specific?</div><div><br></div><div>One research site I
talked to did the classic 'converged infrastructure' idea of attaching
storage drives to their compute nodes and distributing Glustre storage.
They were not happy with that IW as told, and I can very much understand
why. But Gluster on dedicated servers I would be interested to hear
about.</div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 16:41, Paul Edmon <<a href="mailto:pedmon@cfa.harvard.edu">pedmon@cfa.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>While I agree with you in principle, one also has to deal with
the reality as you find yourself in. In our case we have more
experience with Lustre than Ceph in an HPC and we got burned
pretty badly by Gluster. While I like Ceph in principle I haven't
seen it do what Lustre can do in a HPC setting over IB. Now it
may be able to do that, which is great. However then you have to
get your system set up to do that and prove that it can. After
all users have a funny way of breaking things that work amazingly
well in controlled test environs, especially when you have no
control how they will actually use the system (as in a research
environment). Certainly we are working on exploring this option
too as it would be awesome and save many headaches.<br>
</p>
<p>Anyways no worries about you being a smartarse, it is a valid
point. One just needs to consider the realities on the ground in
ones own environment.</p>
<p>-Paul Edmon-<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_2255964174249645937moz-cite-prefix">On 07/24/2018 10:31 AM, John Hearns via
Beowulf wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Forgive me for saying this, but the philosophy for software
defined storage such as CEPH and Gluster is that forklift
style upgrades should not be necessary.</div>
<div>When a storage server is to be retired the data is copied
onto the new server then the old one taken out of service.
Well, copied is not the correct word, as there are
erasure-coded copies of the data. Rebalanced is probaby a
better word.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sorry if I am seeming to be a smartarse. I have gone
through the pain of forklift style upgrades in the past when
storage arrays reach End of Life.</div>
<div>I just really like the Software Defined Storage mantra - no
component should be a point of failure.<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_2255964174249645937mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, <a class="m_2255964174249645937moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org" target="_blank">Beowulf@beowulf.org</a> sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit <a class="m_2255964174249645937moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf" target="_blank">http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Beowulf mailing list, <a href="mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org" target="_blank">Beowulf@beowulf.org</a> sponsored by Penguin Computing<br>
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit <a href="http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf</a><br>
</blockquote></div>