[gpfsug-discuss] Strategies - servers with local SAS disks

Stephen Ulmer ulmer at ulmer.org
Thu Dec 1 04:03:52 GMT 2016


The licensing model was my last point — if the OP uses FPO just to create data resiliency they increase their cost (or curtail their access).

I was really asking if there was a real, technical positive for using FPO in this example, as I could only come up with equivalences and negatives.

-- 
Stephen



> On Nov 30, 2016, at 10:55 PM, Ken Hill <kenh at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> There are three licensing models for Spectrum Scale | GPFS:
> 
> Server
> FPO
> Client
> 
> I think the thing you might be missing is the associated cost per function. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ken Hill
> Technical Sales Specialist | Software Defined Solution Sales
> IBM Systems
> Phone:1-540-207-7270
> E-mail: kenh at us.ibm.com <mailto:kenh at us.ibm.com>	
> <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www.ibm.com/us-en/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/platformcomputing/products/lsf/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/platformcomputing/products/high-performance-services/index.html>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/platformcomputing/products/symphony/index.html>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/spectrum/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/csi/cloud-storage/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/csi/backup-recovery/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/tape/ltfs/index.html>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/spectrum/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/storage/spectrum/scale/>  <Mail Attachment.png> <https://www.ibm.com/marketplace/cloud/object-storage/us/en-us> 
> 
> 2300 Dulles Station Blvd
> Herndon, VA 20171-6133
> United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Stephen Ulmer <ulmer at ulmer.org>
> To:        gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Date:        11/30/2016 09:46 PM
> Subject:        Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Strategies - servers with local SAS disks
> Sent by:        gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand what FPO provides here that mirroring doesn’t:
> You can still use failure domains — one for each node.
> Both still have redundancy for the data; you can lose a disk or a node.
> The data has to be re-striped in the event of a disk failure — no matter what.
> 
> Also, the FPO license doesn’t allow for regular clients to access the data -- only server and FPO nodes.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Liberty,
> 
> -- 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Andrew Beattie <abeattie at au1.ibm.com <mailto:abeattie at au1.ibm.com>> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
>  
> If your not going to use integrated Raid controllers in the servers, then FPO would seem to be the most resilient scenario.
> yes it has its own overheads, but with that many drives to manage, a JOBD architecture and manual restriping doesn't sound like fun
>  
> If you are going down the path of integrated raid controllers then any form of distributed raid is probably the best scenario, Raid 6 obviously.
>  
> How many Nodes are you planning on building?  The more nodes the more value FPO is likely to bring as you can be more specific in how the data is written to the nodes.
>  
> Andrew Beattie
> Software Defined Storage  - IT Specialist
> Phone: 614-2133-7927
> E-mail: abeattie at au1.ibm.com <mailto:abeattie at au1.ibm.com>
>  
>  
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Oesterlin, Robert" <Robert.Oesterlin at nuance.com <mailto:Robert.Oesterlin at nuance.com>>
> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>
> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org <mailto:gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
> Cc:
> Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Strategies - servers with local SAS disks
> Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 12:34 AM
> Looking for feedback/strategies in setting up several GPFS servers with local SAS. They would all be part of the same file system. The systems are all similar in configuration - 70 4TB drives.
> 
>  
> Options I’m considering:
> 
>  
> - Create RAID arrays of the disks on each server (worried about the RAID rebuild time when a drive fails with 4, 6, 8TB drives)
> 
> - No RAID with 2 replicas, single drive per NSD. When a drive fails, recreate the NSD – but then I need to fix up the data replication via restripe
> 
> - FPO – with multiple failure groups -  letting the system manage replica placement and then have GPFS due the restripe on disk failure automatically
> 
>  
> Comments or other ideas welcome.
> 
>  
> Bob Oesterlin
> Sr Principal Storage Engineer, Nuance
> 507-269-0413
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20161130/7257cbdb/attachment.htm>


More information about the gpfsug-discuss mailing list