[gpfsug-discuss] How about GPFS Native Raid?

[Zachary Giles]

Starting to sound like Seagate/Xyratex there. :)


On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Jason Hick <jhick at lbl.gov> wrote:
> For the same reason (storage expansions that follow funding needs), I want a 4 or 5U embedded server/JBOD with GNR.  That would allow us to simply plugin the host interfaces (2-4 of them), configure an IP addr/host name and add it as NSDs to an existing GPFS file system.
>
> As opposed to dealing with racks of storage and architectural details.
>
> Jason
>
>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Chris Hunter <chris.hunter at yale.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I'll 2nd Zach on this. The storage funding model vs the storage purchase model are a challenge.
>>
>> I should also mention often research grant funding can't be used to buy a storage "service" without additional penalties. So S3 or private storage cloud are not financially attractive.
>>
>> We used to have a "pay it forward" model where an investigator would buy ~10 drive batches, which sat on a shelf until we accumulated sufficient drives to fill a new enclosure. Interim, we would allocate storage from existing infrastructure to fulfill the order.
>>
>> A JBOD solution that allows incremental drive expansion is desirable.
>>
>> chris hunter
>> yale hpc group
>>
>>> From: Zachary Giles <zgiles at gmail.com>
>>> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Disabling individual Storage Pools by
>>>    themselves? How about GPFS Native Raid?
>>>
>>> OK, back on topic:
>>> Honestly, I'm really glad you said that. I have that exact problem
>>> also -- a researcher will be funded for xTB of space, and we are told
>>> by the grants office that if something is purchased on a grant it
>>> belongs to them and it should have a sticker put on it that says
>>> "property of the govt' etc etc.
>>> We decided to (as an institution) put the money forward to purchase a
>>> large system ahead of time, and as grants come in, recover the cost
>>> back into the system by paying off our internal "negative balance". In
>>> this way we can get the benefit of a large storage system like
>>> performance and purchasing price, but provision storage into quotas as
>>> needed. We can even put stickers on a handful of drives in the GSS
>>> tray if that makes them feel happy.
>>> Could they request us to hand over their drives and take them out of
>>> our system? Maybe. if the Grants Office made us do it, sure, I'd drain
>>> some pools off and go hand them over.. but that will never happen
>>> because it's more valuable to them in our cluster than sitting on
>>> their table, and I'm not going to deliver the drives full of their
>>> data. That's their responsibility.
>>>
>>> Is it working? Yeah, but, I'm not a grants admin nor an accountant, so
>>> I'll let them figure that out, and they seem to be OK with this model.
>>> And yes, it's not going to work for all institutions unless you can
>>> put the money forward upfront, or do a group purchase at the end of a
>>> year.
>>>
>>> So I 100% agree, GNR doesn't really fit the model of purchasing a few
>>> drives at a time, and the grants things is still a problem.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
>> gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
>> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss



-- 
Zach Giles
zgiles at gmail.com