On 3/20/13 10:54 AM, "linux freaker" <linuxfreaker(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >Yes, you are correct. I wrote lustreclient3 twice, instead of >lustreclient4. >I got your point on this. > >>while MDS and OSS/OST will be undisturbed and will >>neither be namenode/datanode.. am I right? >It can be namenode but should not be datanode since we are not >recommending mount lustre client on servers. > >You said it can be namenode. How is it possible? >Say, if I take MDS as namenode. In case of namenode, we usually take >mount point as /mnt/lustre. But there is no such mount point here in >MDS. Same for OSS / OST. Namenode only uses a small storage. You could do that with local disk, don't need lustre. However, if you use a lustre client as both name node and datanode, it's fine too. > >One more doubt is: > >You expressed .."If you have 2 oss with 6 OST each, resulting total of >12 disks, then you >might use 3 disks on each of 4 datanode (ie. Total 12 disks.) >However, you are using LVM. That's different." > >I dint understand why are we concerned regarding 3 disk on each of 4 >namenode? Are you talking about Hadoop + HDFS here. Yes, to try to use comparable resources. > >Though I will go ahead and test the environment, and then come back >with more results meanwhile. > >Thanks for all the suggestion. Its really great to see such an active >mailinglist. No problem Thanks -Minh > > > > >On 3/20/13, Diep, Minh <minh.diep(a)intel.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> On 3/20/13 10:21 AM, "linux freaker" <linuxfreaker(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>>Just to understand it correctly. >>>If I have 1 MDS, 2 OSS with 6 OST each(created through LVM) and 4 >>>lustreclients. >>>So, as per your statement, its equivalent to 1 NameNode(=> >>>LustreClient1) and 3 DataNode(=>lustreclient2, lustreclient3, >>>lustreclient3), >> Should be 4 datanode + 1 namenode. You had lustreclient3 twice? >> >>>while MDS and OSS/OST will be undisturbed and will >>>neither be namenode/datanode.. am I right? >> It can be namenode but should not be datanode since we are not >> recommending mount lustre client on servers >>> >>>All I dint get this point .."I would also keep the same total number >>>of OSTs and total number of disks on all datanodes." Can you please >>>clarify. >> If you have 2 oss with 6 OST each, resulting total of 12 disks, then you >> might use 3 disks on each of 4 datanode (ie. Total 12 disks.) >> However, you are using LVM. That's different. >> >> You can start out with what you have to see how the perf numbers turn >>out, >> but it's difficult to draw any conclusion if we are not comparing >> apple-to-apple. >> >> Thanks >> -Minh >> >>> >>>Regarding LUG, I will try to see if I can attend it.Thanks for sharing >>>it. >>> >>>On 3/20/13, Diep, Minh <minh.diep(a)intel.com&gt; wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> There isn't a simple or trivial comparison between Hadoop+HDFS and >>>> Hadoop+Lustre. >>>> A typical approach (IMHO) is keeping the same number of Lustre client >>>>with >>>> Hadoop datanode. >>>> I would also keep the same total number of OSTs and total number of >>>>disks >>>> on all datanodes. >>>> >>>>