Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > FWIW, I've mentioned to Supermicro that I would *really* love a version of the > 5018A-AR12L that replaced the Atom with an embedded Xeon-D 1540. :) Is even that enough? (It's a serious question; due to our insatiable

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

On 30-09-15 14:19, Mark Nelson wrote: > On 09/29/2015 04:56 PM, J David wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Gurvinder Singh >> wrote: The density would be higher than the 36 drive units but lower than the 72 drive units (though with shorter rack

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Gurvinder Singh wrote: >> The density would be higher than the 36 drive units but lower than the >> 72 drive units (though with shorter rack depth afaik). > You mean the 1U solution with 12 disk is longer in length than 72 disk > 4U

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

er 130K threads per box. > > Warren > > -Original Message- > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Mark > Nelson > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 3:58 PM > To: Gurvinder Singh <gurvindersinghdah...@gmail.com>; > ceph-u

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

Echoing what Jan said, the 4U Fat Twin is the better choice of the two options, as it is very difficult to get long-term reliable and efficient operation of many OSDs when they are serviced by just one or two CPUs. I don’t believe the FatTwin design has much of a backplane, primarily sharing

[ceph-users] high density machines

Hi, I am wondering if anybody in the community is running ceph cluster with high density machines e.g. Supermicro SYS-F618H-OSD288P (288 TB), Supermicro SSG-6048R-OSD432 (432 TB) or some other high density machines. I am assuming that the installation will be of petabyte scale as you would want

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

It's funny cause in my mind, such dense servers seems like a bad idea to me for exactly the reason you mention, what if it fails. Losing 400+TB of storage is going to have quite some impact, 40G interfaces or not and no matter what options you tweak. Sure it'll be cost effective per TB, but that

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

-users] high density machines On 03 Sep 2015, at 16:49, Paul Evans <p...@daystrom.com <mailto:p...@daystrom.com> > wrote: Echoing what Jan said, the 4U Fat Twin is the better choice of the two options, as it is very difficult to get long-term reliable and efficient operation

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

My take is that you really only want to do these kinds of systems if you have massive deployments. At least 10 of them, but probably more like 20-30+. You do get massive density with them, but I think if you are considering 5 of these, you'd be better off with 10 of the 36 drive units. An

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

It's not exactly a single system SSG-F618H-OSD288P* 4U-FatTwin, 4x 1U 72TB per node, Ceph-OSD-Storage Node This could actually be pretty good, it even has decent CPU power. I'm not a big fan of blades and blade-like systems - sooner or later a backplane will die and you'll need to power off

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

> On 03 Sep 2015, at 16:49, Paul Evans wrote: > > Echoing what Jan said, the 4U Fat Twin is the better choice of the two > options, as it is very difficult to get long-term reliable and efficient > operation of many OSDs when they are serviced by just one or two CPUs. > I

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

Thanks everybody for the feedback. On 09/03/2015 05:09 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > My take is that you really only want to do these kinds of systems if you > have massive deployments. At least 10 of them, but probably more like > 20-30+. You do get massive density with them, but I think if you are

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

Message- From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nelson Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 3:58 PM To: Gurvinder Singh <gurvindersinghdah...@gmail.com>; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com Subject: Re: [ceph-users] high density machines On 09/03/2015 02

Re: [ceph-users] high density machines

On 09/03/2015 02:49 PM, Gurvinder Singh wrote: Thanks everybody for the feedback. On 09/03/2015 05:09 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: My take is that you really only want to do these kinds of systems if you have massive deployments. At least 10 of them, but probably more like 20-30+. You do get