[gpfsug-discuss] Small cluster

Jan-Frode Myklebust janfrode at tanso.net
Mon Mar 7 06:11:27 GMT 2016


I agree, but would also normally want to stay within whatever is
recommended.

What about quorum/manager functions? Also OK to run these on the CES nodes
in a 2-node cluster, or any reason to partition these out so that we then
have a 4-node cluster running on 2 physical machines?


-jf
søn. 6. mar. 2016 kl. 21.28 skrev Marc A Kaplan <makaplan at us.ibm.com>:

> As Sven wrote, the FAQ does not "prevent" anything.  It's just a
> recommendation someone came up with.  Which may or may not apply to your
> situation.
>
> Partitioning a server into two servers might be a good idea if you really
> need the protection/isolation.  But I expect you are limiting the potential
> performance of the overall system, compared to running a single Unix image
> with multiple processes that can share resource and communicate more freely.
>
>
> [image: Marc A Kaplan]
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160307/070f393a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 21994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20160307/070f393a/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 21994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20160307/070f393a/attachment-0001.gif>


More information about the gpfsug-discuss mailing list