This was several years back so the current version of Gluster may be in
better shape. We tried to use it for our primary storage but ran into
scalability problems. It especially was the case when it came to
healing bricks and doing replication. It just didn't scale well.
Eventually we abandoned it for NFS and Lustre, NFS for deep storage and
Lustre for performance. We tried it for hosting VM images which worked
pretty well but we've since moved to Ceph for that.
Anyways I have no idea about current Gluster in terms of scalability so
the issues we ran into may not be an problem anymore. However it has
made us very gun shy about trying Gluster again. Instead we've decided
to use Ceph as we've gained a bunch of experience with Ceph in our
OpenNebula installation.
-Paul Edmon-
On 07/24/2018 11:02 AM, John Hearns via Beowulf wrote:
Paul, thanks for the reply.
I would like to ask, if I may. I rather like Glustre, but have not
deployed it in HPC. I have heard a few people comment about Gluster
not working well in HPC. Would you be willing to be more specific?
One research site I talked to did the classic 'converged
infrastructure' idea of attaching storage drives to their compute
nodes and distributing Glustre storage. They were not happy with that
IW as told, and I can very much understand why. But Gluster on
dedicated servers I would be interested to hear about.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 16:41, Paul Edmon <ped...@cfa.harvard.edu
<mailto:ped...@cfa.harvard.edu>> wrote:
While I agree with you in principle, one also has to deal with the
reality as you find yourself in. In our case we have more
experience with Lustre than Ceph in an HPC and we got burned
pretty badly by Gluster. While I like Ceph in principle I haven't
seen it do what Lustre can do in a HPC setting over IB. Now it
may be able to do that, which is great. However then you have to
get your system set up to do that and prove that it can. After
all users have a funny way of breaking things that work amazingly
well in controlled test environs, especially when you have no
control how they will actually use the system (as in a research
environment). Certainly we are working on exploring this option
too as it would be awesome and save many headaches.
Anyways no worries about you being a smartarse, it is a valid
point. One just needs to consider the realities on the ground in
ones own environment.
-Paul Edmon-
On 07/24/2018 10:31 AM, John Hearns via Beowulf wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but the philosophy for software
defined storage such as CEPH and Gluster is that forklift style
upgrades should not be necessary.
When a storage server is to be retired the data is copied onto
the new server then the old one taken out of service. Well,
copied is not the correct word, as there are erasure-coded copies
of the data. Rebalanced is probaby a better word.
Sorry if I am seeming to be a smartarse. I have gone through the
pain of forklift style upgrades in the past when storage arrays
reach End of Life.
I just really like the Software Defined Storage mantra - no
component should be a point of failure.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list,Beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org>
sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe)
visithttp://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
<mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org> sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
