On Jan 15, 2008 23:25 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:This is exactly the kind of environment that Lustre is designed for. Not only do you get parallel IO performance, but you can also do parallel e2fsck on the individual filesystems when you need it. Not that we aren't also working on improving e2fsck performance, but 100 * 4TB e2fsck in parallel is much better than 1 * 400TB e2fsck (probably not possible on a system today due to RAM constraints though I haven't really done any calculations either way). I know customers were having RAM problems with 3 * 2TB e2fsck in parallel on a 2GB node. Most customers these days use 2-4 4-8TB filesystems per server (inexpensive SMP node with 2-4GB RAM instead of a single monstrous SGI box). We have many Lustre filesystems in the 100-200TB range today, some over 1PB already and much larger ones being planned. Charge them for 2PB of storage, and use rsync :-). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. --
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Martin Michlmayr | Network slowdown due to CFS |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Christos Zoulas | Re: Boot device confusion |
| Manuel Bouyer | Re: NFSv3 bug |
| Anders Magnusson | Re: setsockopt() compat issue |
| Martin Husemann | Re: Compressed vnd handling tested successfully |
