<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi Jonathan</div><div>todays hardware is so powerful that imho it might make sense to split a CEC into more "piece". For example the IBM S822L has up to 2x12 cores, 9 PCI3 slots ( 4×16 lans & 5×8 lan ).</div><div>I think that such a server is a little bit to big just to be a single NSD server.</div><div>Note that i use for each GPFS service a dedicated node.</div><div>So if i would go for 4 NSD server, 6 protocol nodes and 2 tsm backup nodes and at least 3 test server a total of 11 server is needed.</div><div>Inhm 4xS822L could handle this and a little bit more quite well.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course blade technology could be used or 1U server.</div><div><br></div><div>With kind regards</div><div>Hajo</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div>Unix Systems Engineer<div>MetaModul GmbH</div><div>+49 177 4393994</div><br><br><div>-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------</div><div>Von: Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan@buzzard.me.uk> </div><div>Datum:2017.04.24 13:14 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>An: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org> </div><div>Betreff: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Used virtualization technologies for
GPFS/Spectrum Scale </div><div><br></div>On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 12:28 +0200, Hans-Joachim Ehlers wrote:<br>> @All<br>> <br>> <br>> does anybody uses virtualization technologies for GPFS Server ? If yes<br>> what kind and why have you selected your soulution.<br>> <br>> I think currently about using Linux on Power using 40G SR-IOV for<br>> Network and NPIV/Dedidcated FC Adater for storage. As a plus i can<br>> also assign only a certain amount of CPUs to GPFS. ( Lower license<br>> cost / You pay for what you use)<br>> <br>> <br>> I must admit that i am not familar how "good" KVM/ESX in respect to<br>> direct assignment of hardware is. Thus the question to the group<br>> <br><br>For the most part GPFS is used at scale and in general all the<br>components are redundant. As such why you would want to allocate less<br>than a whole server into a production GPFS system in somewhat beyond me.<br><br>That is you will have a bunch of NSD servers in the system and if one<br>crashes, well the other NSD's take over. Similar for protocol nodes, and<br>in general the total file system size is going to hundreds of TB<br>otherwise why bother with GPFS.<br><br>I guess there is currently potential value at sticking the GUI into a<br>virtual machine to get redundancy.<br><br>On the other hand if you want a test rig, then virtualization works<br>wonders. I have put GPFS on a single Linux box, using LV's for the disks<br>and mapping them into virtual machines under KVM.<br><br>JAB.<br><br>-- <br>Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk<br>Fife, United Kingdom.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<br></body>