Hi,
I suggest also to read the license, because it is not a standard open source
one. Depending on your situation this might not be an issue. As far as I
remember:
- As a service provider you need a xontract with Thinkparq to provide BeeGFS to
others.
- Thinkparq reserves for themselves the co
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:52 AM Will Dennis wrote:
>
> I am considering using BeeGFS for a parallel file system for one (and if
> successful, more) of our clusters here. Just wanted to get folks’ opinions on
> that, and if there is any “gotchas” or better-fit solutions out there... The
> first
I would not be just switching filesystems, I’d be building out a new storage
cluster on new hardware... A single ZFS-based NFS server has been good up until
recently, but now is running out of steam in both space and I/O performance...
It’s time to do the next thing, trying to decide what that w
(resending to list)
Hey Will,
I have heard good things about BeeGFS but have not yet met anyone using it.
Try it out and let us know! :)
Since you are using ZFS now, why do you want to switch? Do you want HA?
You can do two-server active/passive ZFS HA with e.g.
https://github.com/ewwhite/zfs-h
Will,
We setup BeeGFS for a potential scientist work and found it reasonably easy
to setup. The software was built by admins, so administration was fairly
easy and adding nodes worked well. We used SSD's for the metadata servers
and regular SAS drives for data stores. In testing, we got some decen
On 3/18/19 12:02 PM, Prentice Bisbal via Beowulf wrote:
Will,
Several years ago,when I was at Rutgers, Joe Landman's company,
Scalable Informatics (RIP), was trying to sell be on BeeGFS over
Lustre and GPFS. At the time, I was not interested. Why not? BeeGFS
was still relatively new, and Lu
Will,
Several years ago,when I was at Rutgers, Joe Landman's company, Scalable
Informatics (RIP), was trying to sell be on BeeGFS over Lustre and GPFS.
At the time, I was not interested. Why not? BeeGFS was still relatively
new, and Lustre and GPFS had larger install bases, and therefore bigg
Regardless of how fast the storage medium is, you still need locks to
make sure that two different processes/threads don't try to write to the
same location at the same time, so using a RAMFS, you would still have
the same exact contention and locking issues. The only difference is
that the rea
Hi all,
I am considering using BeeGFS for a parallel file system for one (and if
successful, more) of our clusters here. Just wanted to get folks' opinions on
that, and if there is any "gotchas" or better-fit solutions out there... The
first cluster I am considering it for has ~50TB storage off
On 3/15/19 9:23 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:28:42 +, you wrote:
I think what I was getting at is why not include the current HPC practices to
every day desktops in the sense since we are reaching certain limits and have
to write code to take advantage of more and mo
10 matches
Mail list logo
