[gpfsug-discuss] Small cluster

[Zachary Giles]

You can do FPO for non-Hadoop workloads. It just alters the disks below the
GPFS filesystem layer and looks like a normal GPFS system (mostly).  I do
think there were some restrictions on non-FPO nodes mounting FPO
filesystems via multi-cluster.. not sure if those are still there.. any
input on that from IBM?

If small enough data, and with 3-way replication, it might just be wise to
do internal storage and 3x rep. A 36TB 2U server is ~$10K (just common
throwing out numbers), 3 of those per site would fit in your budget.

Again.. depending on your requirements, stability balance between 'science
experiment' vs production, GPFS knowledge level, etc etc...

This is actually an interesting and somewhat missing space for small
enterprises. If you just want 10-20TB active-active online everywhere, say,
for VMware, or NFS, or something else, there arent all that many good
solutions today that scale down far enough and are a decent price. It's
easy with many many PB, but small.. idk. I think the above sounds good as
anything without going SAN-crazy.



On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mark.Bush at siriuscom.com <
Mark.Bush at siriuscom.com> wrote:

> I guess this is really my question.  Budget is less than $50k per site and
> they need around 20TB storage.  Two nodes with MD3 or something may work.
> But could it work (and be successful) with just servers and internal
> drives?  Should I do FPO for non hadoop like workloads?  I didn’t think I
> could get native raid except in the ESS (GSS no longer exists if I remember
> correctly).  Do I just make replicas and call it good?
>
>
> Mark
>
> From: <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> on behalf of Marc A
> Kaplan <makaplan at us.ibm.com>
> Reply-To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Date: Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:09 AM
> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Small cluster
>
> Jon, I don't doubt your experience, but it's not quite fair or even
> sensible to make a decision today based on what was available in the GPFS
> 2.3 era.
>
> We are now at GPFS 4.2 with support for 3 way replication and FPO.
> Also we have Raid controllers, IB, and "Native Raid" and ESS, GSS
> solutions and more.
>
> So more choices, more options, making finding an "optimal" solution more
> difficult.
>
> To begin with, as with any provisioning problem, one should try to state:
> requirements, goals, budgets, constraints, failure/tolerance
> models/assumptions,
> expected workloads, desired performance, etc, etc.
>
>
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This
> message may be viewed by parties at Sirius Computer Solutions other than
> those named in the message header. This message does not contain an
> official representation of Sirius Computer Solutions. If you have received
> this communication in error, notify Sirius Computer Solutions immediately
> and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
> immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you.
> Sirius Computer Solutions <http://www.siriuscom.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
>


-- 
Zach Giles
zgiles at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20160304/30ecf95b/attachment-0002.htm>