[Beowulf] automount on high ports
gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Wed Jul 2 07:09:34 PDT 2008
Scott Atchley wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Carsten Aulbert wrote:
>> Bogdan Costescu wrote:
>>> Have you considered using a parallel file system ?
>> We looked a bit into a few, but would love to get any input from anyone
>> on that. What we found so far was not really convincing, e.g. glusterFS
>> at that time was not really stable, lustre was too easy to crash - at l
>> east at that time, ...
> Hi Carsten,
> I have not looked at GlusterFS at all. I have worked with Lustre and
> PVFS2 (I wrote the shims to allow them to run on MX).
> Although I believe Lustre's robustness is very good these days, I do not
> believe that it will not work in your setting. I think that they
> currently do not recommend mounting a client on a node that is also
> working as a server as you are doing with NFS. I believe it is due to
> memory contention leading to deadlock.
Lustre is good enough that it's the parallel FS at TACC for the Ranger
cluster. And, I've had no real problems as a user thereof. We're
brining up glustre on our new cluster here ( <flamebait> CentOS/RHEL5,
not debian </flamebait>). We looked at zfs but didn't have sufficient
experience to go that path.
> PVFS2 does, however, support your scenario where each node is a server
> and can be mounted locally as well. PVFS2 servers run in userspace and
> can be easily debugged. If you are using MPI-IO, it integrates nicely as
> well. Even so, keep in mind that using each node as a server will
> consume network resources and will compete with MPI communications.
Someone at NCAR recently suggested we review PVFS2. I'm gonna do it as
soon as I get a free moment on vacation.
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
More information about the Beowulf