Speaking of the future. Is there any more news about SNS? I think thats the only thing Lustre is missing to make it "production" ready and not just for research labs.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Stuart Midgley <sdm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, we suffer hardware failures. All the time. That is sort of the point > of Lustre and a clustered file system :) > > We have had double-disk failures with raid5 (recovered everything except ~1MB > of data), server failures, MDS failures etc. We successfully recovered from > them all. Sure, it can be a little stressful... but it all works. > > If server hardware fails, our file systems basically hangs until we fix it. > Our most common failure is obviously disks... and they are all covered by > raid. Since we have mostly direct attached disk, you have a few minutes > downtime of a server while you replace the disk... everything continues as > normal when the server comes back. > > -- > Dr Stuart Midgley > sdm...@gmail.com > > > > On 23/04/2010, at 18:41 , Janne Aho wrote: > >> On 23/04/10 11:42, Stu Midgley wrote: >> >>>> Would lustre have issues if using cheap off the shell components or >>>> would people here think you need to have high end machines with built in >>>> redundancy for everything? >>> >>> We run lustre on cheap off the shelf gear. We have 4 generations of >>> cheapish gear in a single 300TB lustre config (40 oss's) >>> >>> It has been running very very well for about 3.5 years now. >> >> This sounds promising. >> >> Have you had any hardware failures? >> If yes, how well has the cluster cooped with the loss of the machine(s)? >> >> >> Any advice you can share from your initial setup of lustre? > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
