Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:17:58 +1030 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> Cc: freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sharing files within a cluster Message-ID: <20021211091758.A10814@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <20021210132642.N80252-100000@fubar.adept.org>; from mike@adept.org on Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:40:47PM -0800 References: <20021211025917.A9059@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20021210132642.N80252-100000@fubar.adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:40:47PM -0800, Mike Hoskins wrote: > > . GPFS http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/clusters/software/gpfs.html > > Anyone used this with Linux? I tend to have faith in Big Blue's > engineering practices, in general they hire smart people. Interestingly, the last paragraph on this page also appears to say that its BSD licensed, making it a good fit at least license wise. I think technical considerations should come first, but if people it want it in the mainstream FreeBSD code, licensing is a consideration. > > . Lustre http://www.lustre.org/ > > "The central target in this project is the development of Lustre, a > next-generation cluster file system which can serve clusters with 10,000's > of nodes, petabytes of storage, move 100's of GB/sec with state of the art > security and management infrastructure. The 1.0 release of Lustre will > happen early 2002 and will target clusters up to 1,000 nodes with 100'TB's > of storage." > > Quite the claim(s), anyone actually seen it work? Lustre is in use on the MCR cluster (http://www.llnl.gov/linux/mcr/) that comes in at 5 on the latest top 500 list (http://www.top500.org/) of super computers. I'm pretty sure that is the biggest cluster currently using it. MCR certainly satisfies the 1000 nodes (1152) and 100 TBs (110) of disk space parts of their statements regarding 1.0 (which isn't even out). > I don't think there's any 'pretty' FreeBSD clustering solution today... > Pretty meaning a combination of managability, stability, robustness and > correctness. So, moving forward, can we reach a consensus on 'what's best > to try to port?' I think there can certainly be a worthwhile discussion of what people think would be the best to port and why. Ultimately the people who volunteer to do the work get to pick though :). -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021211091758.A10814>