[Beowulf] Which do you prefer local disk installed OS or NFS rooted?
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at physics.mcmaster.caThu Jul 15 23:11:20 PDT 2004
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Which do you prefer local disk installed OS or NFS rooted?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Which do you prefer local disk installed OS or NFS rooted?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> What benefits and drawbacks have all of you seen by doing either? using nfsroot means quite a bit of traffic that could be avoided if those files were installed on each node's disk. using nfsroot also makes the nodes less independent, more vulnerable to problems on the server(s). using nfsroot is incredibly convenient. nodes can even tolerate a broken disk. I've built two significant clusters now with nfsroot, and intend to use it on a very large one in the coming year. at least on the two smaller clusters (~100 duals), there is no clear sign that NFS load is causing a problem. in both cases, the single fileserver is nothing special (a dual, 1G ram, md raid, single gigabit connection). if there did appear to be a problem arising, I'd first split across a couple fileservers, rather than abandoning nfsroot. many large clusters are now being designed with fileservers sitting on the fast cluster interconnect. this trend seems to support the nfsroot approach, since going from 60 MB/s over gigabit to 800 MB/s over quadrics/IB would postpone NFS congestion. regards, mark hahn.
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Which do you prefer local disk installed OS or NFS rooted?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Which do you prefer local disk installed OS or NFS rooted?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
