[Beowulf] GPFS and failed metadata NSD

Ryan Novosielski novosirj at rutgers.edu
Thu May 25 08:58:13 PDT 2017

> On May 25, 2017, at 11:48, Tim Cutts <tjrc at sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> Neither is replication a backup, and for the same reason.  However, at large data scales formal backups become prohibitively expensive, and therefore people use replication or erasure coding instead, and have to accept that while they're protected against hardware failure, they're not very well protected against user failure.
> This is a really thorny issue.  On our archival storage platform for our raw sequencing data, where we use iRODS to manage the data, the data is replicated, and there are tight controls on who is allowed to modify the data (essentially, no-one - even the data owners are not allowed to modify or delete their own data on that platform; they have to make a specific request to a core team responsible for the archive)

I’d be interested to hear what people are doing, generally, about backing up very large volumes of data (that probably seem smaller to more established centers), like 500TB to 1PB. It sounds to me like a combination of replication and filesystem snapshots (those replicated or not) do protect against hardware failure and user failure, depending on the frequency and whether or not you have any other hidden weaknesses.

|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20170525/0463f2ed/attachment.sig>

More information about the Beowulf mailing list