I would suggest to keep the OST size uniform that you migrate the existing OSTs to the new 600GB drive LUNs then combine pairs of (now unused) 300GB LUNs into double-sized OSTs to match the new ones.
While the MDS will handle different-sized OSTs OK, it isn't the ideal situation. Cheers, Andreas On 2010-04-09, at 20:17, Sebastian Gutierrez <gut...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hello > So we are currently looking at upgrading one of our Lustre file > system. > > The current filesystems: > 2 MDS servers in a cold spare configuration over IB > 2 Filesystems one /home and /scratch > 8 OSS with 2 SAS JBODS each has 14x300GB 10K drives. 2 hot spares > 2 OSTs per server. One segment is for /home and one for /scratch > > Proposed solution by hardware vendor. > 8 OSS with 2 SAS JBODS each has 14x600GB 10K drives. 2 hot spares > 2OSTs per server. > Both segments would be added onto the /scratch file system. > Max out the memory in the existing OSS systems to plan for future 1.8 > upgrade > > I understand the potential administrative overhead in having OSTs that > are larger than the old OSTs. I have not been supporting Lustre long > enough to know if there are any major performance implications of this > setup. > > My questions are: > > Will Lustre handle this type of configuration gracefully? > Are there any other reasons that this may not be a good idea other > than > administrative overhead of having to watch the OSTs and make sure that > they do not fill up? > Are there any issues with having these new servers serve 2 segments of > the same filesystem? > Are there anything else I should consider that I may be missing? > > Thanks > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > 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
