[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lustre-discuss
Subject:    [Lustre-discuss] Lustre on DRBD couples?
From:       joao () silvaneves ! org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Miguel Neves)
Date:       2006-05-19 7:36:50
Message-ID: 1146671000.15276.13.camel () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

On a low-cost unreliable gigabit switch, 4 2-machine nodes with drbd 0.6
with 8 250GB SATA on each machine and lustre 1.2 we got around 170MB/s
(same switch used for drbd and lustre). Each machine has 1GB of RAM and
a PIV 2.4MHz

We have since upgraded the switch and are deploying drbd 0.7 with lustre
1.4. I have no data on performance so far.

Qua, 2006-05-03 ?s 16:35 +0200, Alexander Jolk escreveu:
> Brent A Nelson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > 
> >> On May 02, 2006  18:51 +0200, Alexander Jolk wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd configure a pair of these OSSs with two RAID0 sets striped across
> >>> all six disks, and form two DRBD volumes to export as OST.  For the DRBD
> >>> interconnect I was planning on using a crossover ethernet cable with
> >>> jumbo frames; connection to the rest of the network is over the other
> >>> ethernet port with standard MTU.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd recommend against RAID0, just because disk failure is by far the
> >> most common failure mode.  You'll have to resync the whole volume for
> >> each disk failure, opening up the possibility of a double failure.
> >>
> > 
> > What if he reversed his scenario, using RAID0 on top of drbd (6 drbd 
> > pairs), essentially making a RAID10 setup? Similarly he could skip the 
> > RAID0, and have each drbd pair be a Lustre OST so that Lustre handles 
> > the striping...
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me, thanks for the input.  Just to make sure I 
> follow correctly, if I do 6 DRBD pairs, three of which are exported by 
> each of the OSSs, what happens if one disk fails?  As long as the 
> heartbeat between the nodes works, the other node won't be tempted to 
> stonith the first one?
> 
> Does anybody have an idea of the I/O bandwidth that I might reasonably 
> hope to attain with this kind of setup?
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Esta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9?= uma parte de mensagem
	assinada digitalmente
Url : http://mail.clusterfs.com/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20060503/992989b2/attachment.bin

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]