Mogile Deployment Layout: More Hosts or More Disks.

[Lance Boomerang]

I am looking to build out a fairly dense setup with nodes having 8 or so 
SATA drive slots for about 6 TB per node (8x750GB).   Initially plan to 
have 6 of these nodes.   Initial build out would have 30 TB or so.  
Debating going for higher / lower density on either number of drives per 
node, and / or size of individual drives.  The long term plan is to 
scale this out to potentially a PB or so.  Stability / integrity is more 
important than performance, but power and space usage are tight also.  I 
was wondering if anyone has dabbled with dense solution.  I would even 
consider building out 9 TB nodes, but not sure this is truly feasible.  
If anyone has thoughts on this I would be very interested.

Thanks!





marc at corky.net wrote:
> I can only comment on what I'd do - I don't run mogile (yet) and am 
> just observing.   We have a similar, home grown system.  I would go 
> for boxes with more disks if I were you.     How much actual storage 
> would you be needing?
>
> Marc
>
>
> Javier Frias wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> At my company we've recently evaluated mogilefs and it seems to meet
>> our needs. (great piece of software btw ) We are now planning to build
>> out our prod configuration and are having issues deciding on a
>> hardware layout, so I'm looking for input from people that may have
>> used mogilefs in a similar way.
>>
>> Basically, we will be using mogilefs for long term text and image
>> archiving, as well as low level image serving ( it will only be
>> feeding our CDN, so while there will be some performance issues, it
>> doesnt look to be now our primary concern since the system will only
>> be feeding the CDN and not taking the brunt of the traffic itself ),
>> but from time to time, we will run batch jobs that will fetch ten's of
>> thousands of items for reprocessing.
>>
>> Main question is, do we do more hosts per disks, or more disks per 
>> hosts.
>>
>> Due to hardware standards ( self imposed, too many hosts to have to
>> worry about yet another hardware manufacturer ) I have the choice of
>> either a host that can handle two 750GB disks ( dell 860s or 1435's )
>> or a host that can handle 6 x 750GB disks ( dell 2950's ) for the
>> storage nodes. The difference in pricing is about 20%  in favor of a 6
>> disk server solution, versus a 2 disks server solution. So is the
>> extra complexity worth it in terms of performance and redundancy? or
>> will i be shooting myself in the foot by having 3 X the number of
>> storage nodes? I'm planning a 3 copy policy for most of my files, and
>> will need approximate 5TB to start, so we are taking of at least 4 x 6
>> disks systems, or 10-12 2 disk systems.
>>
>> Any input greatly appreciated.
>>
>> As a side note, any real reason not to run the trackers on the storage
>> nodes? also, anyone have any pros cons on running mysql master/save
>> with InnoDB on DRBD versus running lets say mysql cluster?
>>
>>
>> thx
>>
>>   
>
>
>


-- 
CSI Cardiff, I'd like to see that. They'd be measuring the velocity of a kebab!"