Patrick Geoffray wrote:
I'll second this recommendation. The Coraid servers are fairly
+1. The AoE spec is very simple, I wish it would have more traction
outside CoRaID. On the opposite, iSCSI is a utter mess with all the bad
-1 on the AoE initiator implementation. Seriously. We have c
Alex Chekholko wrote:
Thanks for the pointers! I had never heard of AoE before!
This is all well and good until you compare the prices of the respective
solutions.
E.g. what's the cheapest 5TB (usable) AoE box you can buy?
I believe somewhat more than a relatively fast iSCSI/SRP/NFS/CIFS b
> -Original Message-
> From: beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org [mailto:beowulf-boun...@beowulf.org] On
> Behalf Of David Mathog
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 3:44 PM
> To: beowulf@beowulf.org
> Subject: [Beowulf] case (de)construction question
>
> Many rack cases have threaded standoff's
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:05:01 -0600
Rahul Nabar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> > On 2/18/2010 2:26 PM, Jesse Becker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:12:05PM -0500, Gerald Creager wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For what you're describing, I'd consider CoRAID's A
I'm curious, what's the selling point for iSCSI then? The prices are
quite ramped up and the performance not stellar. Do any of you in the
HPC world buy i-SCSI at all?
ease, I suppose. ethernet is omnipresent, so anything which uses
ethernet has a big advantage. the sticking point is really t
Many rack cases have threaded standoff's directly attached to the case
metal. On the outside of the case one sees a hexagonal nut, and on the
inside the cylindrical standoff - with no sign of the hexagonal nut. We
even have one type of case with a removable motherboard tray, which is
quite thin,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
Thanks Mark!
> right - 10 years ago, the cost overhead of the system was larger.
> nowadays, integration and moore's law has made small systems very cheap.
> this is good, since disks are incredibly cheap as well. (bad if you're
> in the storag
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 2:26 PM, Jesse Becker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:12:05PM -0500, Gerald Creager wrote:
>>>
>>> For what you're describing, I'd consider CoRAID's AoE technology and
>
>> I'll second this recommendation. The Coraid s
On 2/18/2010 2:26 PM, Jesse Becker wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:12:05PM -0500, Gerald Creager wrote:
For what you're describing, I'd consider CoRAID's AoE technology and
I'll second this recommendation. The Coraid servers are fairly
+1. The AoE spec is very simple, I wish it would have
Nice to hear from you Greg, hope all is well.
I don't forget anything, at least for now. OSU has different benchmarks
so you can measure message coalescing or real message rate. Funny to
read that Q hated coalescing when they created the first benchmark for
that ...:-) but lets not argue on that.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 01:47:07PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
> The big issue will be contention for the resource.
Joe,
What "the resource" is depends on implementation.
All network cards have the limit of the line rate of the network.
As far as I can tell, the Mellanox IB cards have a limited
> Mellanox latest message rate numbers with ConnectX-2 more than
> doubled versus the old cards, and are for real message rate -
> separate messages on the wire. The competitor numbers are with using
> message coalescing, so it is not real separate messages on the wire,
> or not really message rate
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 01:25:07PM -0500, Brian Dobbins wrote:
> I know Qlogic has made a big deal about the InfiniPath adapter's extremely
> good message rate in the past... is this still an important issue?
Yes, for many codes. If I recall stuff I published a while ago, WRF
sent a surprising
When you look on low level, marketing driven benchmarks, you should be careful.
Mellanox latest message rate numbers with ConnectX-2 more than doubled versus
the old cards, and are for real message rate - separate messages on the wire.
The competitor numbers are with using message coalescing, so
the folks on the linux-rdma mailing list can probably share some
slides with you about app load over different cards. if you dont get
a response, i can drop a few names of people who definitely have the
info, but i dont want to do it at large on the list
The last set of slides i can (thinking way
Hi Joe,
I'm beginning to look into configurations for a new cluster and with the
>> AMD 12-core and Intel 8-core chips 'here' (or coming soonish), I'm curious
>> if anyone has any data on the effects of the messaging rate of the IB cards.
>> With a 4-socket node having between 32 and 48 cores,
Brian Dobbins wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm beginning to look into configurations for a new cluster and with
the AMD 12-core and Intel 8-core chips 'here' (or coming soonish), I'm
curious if anyone has any data on the effects of the messaging rate of
the IB cards. With a 4-socket node having betwee
Hi guys,
I'm beginning to look into configurations for a new cluster and with the
AMD 12-core and Intel 8-core chips 'here' (or coming soonish), I'm curious
if anyone has any data on the effects of the messaging rate of the IB
cards. With a 4-socket node having between 32 and 48 cores, lots of
I was thinking SAS / SCSI / iSCSI is probably easiest and cheapest.
the concept of scsi/sas being cheap is rather amusing.
Do you already have a suitable SAS or SCSI controller in the host
machine? ?If not, then you have to factor in the cost of the controller.
No. true. I have to factor in
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Alex Chekholko wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:53:22 -0600
> Rahul Nabar wrote:
>
>>
>> I was thinking SAS / SCSI / iSCSI is probably easiest and cheapest.
> Do you already have a suitable SAS or SCSI controller in the host
> machine? If not, then you have to f
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:53:22PM -0600, Rahul Nabar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Alex Chekholko wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:37:36 -0600
> > Does it need to be rack-mount? What kind of interface?
>
> Preferably rack-mount. But cost is a compelling argument . I could be
> con
21 matches
Mail list logo
