Slashdot Mirror
Building a Massive Single Volume Storage Solution?
An anonymous reader asks: "I've been asked to build a massive storage solution to scale from an initial threshold of 25TB to 1PB, primarily on commodity hardware and software. Based on my past experience and research, the commercial offerings for such a solution becomes cost prohibitive, and the budget for the solution is fairly small. Some the technologies that I've been scoping out are iSCSI, AoE and plain clustered/grid computers with JBOD (just a bunch of disks). Personally I'm more inclined on a grid cluster with 1GB interface where each node will have about 1-2TB of disk space and each node is based on a 'low' power consumption architecture. Next issue to tackle is finding a file system that could span across all the nodes and yet appear as a single volume to the application servers. At this point data redundancy is not a priority, however it will have to be addressed. My research has not yielded any viable open source alternative (unless Google releases GoogleFS) and I've researched into Lustre, xFS and PVFS. There some interesting commercial products such as the File Director from NeoPath Networks and a few others; however the cost is astronomical.
I would like to know if any Slashdot readers have any experience in build out such a solution? Any help/idea(s) would be greatly appreciated!"
Unfortunately, I should think needing a solution which can scale up to a Petabyte (!) of disk-space and a "fairly small" budget are at odds with one another.
Maybe you need to make a stronger case to someone that if such a mammoth storage system is required, it needs to be a higher priority item with better funding?
Heck, the loss of such large volumes of data would be devastating (I assume it's not your pr0n collection) to any organization. Buliding it on the cheap and having no backup (*)/redundancy systems would be just waiting to lose the whole thing.
(*) I truly have no idea how one backs up a petabyte
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
the reason you can't find a cheap way to do this is because it just isn't cheap.
I would look at some lessons learned from Google. If you decide to go with some sort of homebrew solution based on a bunch of standard consumer disks you will run into other problems besides money. The more disks you have running, the more failures you will encounter. So any system you setup has to be able to have drives fail all day, and not require human intervention to stay up and running(unless you can get humans for cheap too).
Look. Everyone wants a Lamborgini for the price of a Chevy. Cute. Yawn. Half of the Ask Slashdot questions are people who didn't find what they want at Walmart. Despite the amazing Slashdot advice, Ask Slashdot answers have somehow failed to put EMC, IBM, HP, etc. out of business. There is no free lunch.
Just call EMC, get a rep out, and give the paperwork to your boss. Do it today instead of 5 months from now and you will have a much better holiday season.
Note to moderators and other finger pointers: I did not say to BUY from EMC, I just said to show his boss how and why to do things the right way. It does not hurt to get quotes from the big vendors, mainly because the quote also comes with good, solid info that you can share with the PHBs. Despite what you think about "evil" tech sales persons and sales engineers, you actually can learn from them.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Agreed. We have around 50 TByte of data in one of our datacenters and it's great, but the number of disks that fail when you have to restart the systems (SAN fabric firmware install ) is just scary. Even on the system disks of the Wintel servers (around 400) which are DAS, around 10% fail on Datacenter powerdowns. That's where you pray that statistics are kind and you have no more failures on any one box than you have hot spares+tolerance :-) Last time one server didn't make it back up because of this.... though it was actually strictly speaking the PSUs that let go, it would appear.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Exactly. This seems like somebody is trying to figure out a way to do something in-house which really ought to be left to either an outside contractor, or at least set up as a turnkey solution by a consultant. Given that he knows little enough about it that he's asking for help on Slashdot, I think this is yet another problem best solved using the telephone and a fat checkbook, and enough negotiating skills to convince management to pony up the cash up front instead of piddling it out over time on an in-house solution that's going to be a hole into which money and time are poured.
/. crowd for help, calling in professionals to take over for you isn't probably a bad idea.
I know people get tired of hearing "call IBM" as a solution to these questions, but in general if you have some massive IT infrastructure development task and are so lost on it that you're asking the
It's not even a question if whether you could do it in-house or not; given enough resources you probably could. It comes down to why you want to do something like this yourselves instead of finding people who do it all the time, week after week, for a living, telling them what you want, getting a price quote, and getting it done. Sure seems like a better way to go to me.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This guy is worried about budget, yet even with the "low power" usage of the petabox it would still use 50kW for one petabyte of storage! When you combine the cooling for that with the cost of electricity you are talking some serious money. If you have trouble getting the capital funds for something like this how are you ever going to pay the operating costs?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
A PETABYTE without redundancy? I can't imagine having that much data I didn't care about.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
Why do people keep talking about GoogleFS, given that it doesn't exist outside Google?
Stop what you are doing right now. If your architecture requires you to have one huge volume then you have architected things wrong. Imagine trying to fsck this damned thing! What about file system corruption- What the hell are you going to do when you lose a Petabyte of data because of some file system corruption? Small, sensible, easily managed smaller partitions are the way to go. Use a database to organize where given files are stored. Do something that makes sense. I have a client now who just lost a bunch of data because they used a system like this.
Having said all this- If you are still intent on finding a good file system then use AFS. It's probably your best free solution. If you want to sleep at night call EMC.
-sirket
This guy is worried about budget, yet even with the "low power" usage of the petabox it would still use 50kW for one petabyte of storage!
Interesting to think about. My brain probably holds about a petabyte of memories and it uses 20-60 watts. Mostly from sugar.
"This product is tangentially related to a product which, five years ago, I had unspecified bad experiences with. Ergo, this product sucks."
Only on fucking Slashdot.
The CPU might be able to handle this load easily, but my question is will the bus (PCI or otherwise) be able to handle this load?
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!