[gpfsug-discuss] How about GPFS Native Raid?

Jason Hick jhick at lbl.gov
Fri Jun 19 23:18:56 BST 2015


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



More information about the gpfsug-discuss mailing list