Slashdot Mirror
IBM's High Performance File System
HoosierPeschke writes "BetaNews is running a story about IBM's new file system, General Parallel File System (GPFS). The short and skinny is that the new file system attained a 102 Gigabyte per second transfer rate. The size of the file system is also astonishing at 1.6 petabytes (petabyte == 1,024 terabytes). IBM has up a page with more information and specs on the system.."
Wow that"s fast stuff, plus with the ability to slow light to save energy IBM should have some great new systems coming out!
Britney Simpson
I thought this article was going to be about IBM's HPFS from OS/2.
That aside, how do I get one for my TiVo?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's basically data striping across 1000 disks. I suppose the hard part is coordinating all of that parallelism.
So, could someone who actually knows this stuff tell me how well I did?
Mox
GPFS Whitepaper - http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/soft ware/whitepapers/gpfsprimer.pdf
"GPFS is a cluster file system providing normal application interfaces, and has been available on AIX® operating system-based clusters since 1998 and Linux operating system-based clusters since 2001. GPFS distinguishes itself from other cluster file systems by providing concurrent, high-speed file access to applications executing on multiple nodes in an AIX 5L cluster, a Linux cluster or a heterogeneous cluster of AIX 5L and Linux machines. The processors supporting this cluster may be a mixture of IBM System p5(TM), p5 and pSeries® machines, IBM BladeCenter(TM) or IBM xSeries® machines based on Intel® or AMD processors. GPFS supports the current releases of AIX 5L and selected releases of Red Hat and SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server distributions. See the GPFS FAQ1 for a current list of tested machines and also tested Linux distribution levels. It is possible to run GPFS on compatible machines from other hardware vendors, but you should contact your IBM sales representative for details.
GPFS for AIX 5L and GPFS for Linux are derived from the same programming source and differ principally in adapting to the different hardware and operating system environments. The functionality of the two products is identical. GPFS V2.3 allows AIX 5L and Linux nodes, including Linux nodes on different machine architectures, to exist in the same cluster with shared access to the same GPFS file system. A cluster is a managed collection of computers which are connected via a network and share access to storage. Storage may be shared directly using storage networking capabilities provided by a storage vendor or by using IBM supplied capabilities which simulate a storage area network (SAN) over an IP network.
GPFS V2.3 is enhanced over previous releases of GPFS by introducing the capability to share data between clusters. This means that a cluster with proper authority can mount and directly access data owned by another cluster. It is possible to create clusters which own no data and are created for the sole purpose of accessing data owned by other clusters. The data transport uses either GPFS SAN simulation capabilities over a general network or SAN extension hardware.
GPFS V2.3 also adds new facilities in support of disaster recovery, recoverability and scaling. See the product publications for details2."
You puny geekling. It's been years since I migrated my enormous collection of pr0n to my petabyte array...
Running out of space too... maybe I should build a beowulf cluster of them.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Oh, come now. They just finished winning their latest legal round on FAT
Give them a moment to catch their breath, will you?
introducing OrigamiFS, you write it out on paper then fold it in half as many times as you can
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think the "news" is the transfer rate, not the file system.
According to this article, the idea was just to see how fast a sustained transfer rate they could achieve. That rate was 102 GiB/s, which apparently is a record. The purpose of the project apparently has something to do with reducing the bottlenecking in parallel-computing interconnects. The machine they used, ASC Purple (a weapons-research system at Lawrence Livermore Labs) has about 10,000+ processors, so that's their obvious application.
The filesystem itself doesn't seem to be anything new -- I have no idea why the poster fixated on that, since it's kind of a minor footnote in most of the articles I've read about this today.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
2000 x 431.99 = $863,980CAD
I don't think that that's a lot of money for a petabyte raid. Hell, you might even get a 20% discount. Now think back about 20 years. That sum of money could have bought you 1 GB - that is an order of magnitude less in hard drive space. But here is the kicker:
Approx. 20 years down the road you will get at least two magnitudes more for the same amount of money (wo/ inflation). Why? Because approx. 30 years ago, that sum of money bought you 1 MB of space.
Ray Kurweil calls it the "Law of Accelerating Returns". 20 years down the road I will call it my petaporn array . Or maybe better not.
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
The submitter and editors need to learn their numeric prefixes. Come on! This web site is supposed to be for people who understand computer technology!
A petabyte == 1000 terrabytes
A pebibyte == 1024 terrabytes
Please see the NIST definition page:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
ZFS from Sun is 128-bit. According to this guy
thats a whole load of data:
"Although we'd all like Moore's Law to continue forever, quantum mechanics imposes some fundamental limits on the computation rate and information capacity of any physical device. In particular, it has been shown that 1 kilogram of matter confined to 1 liter of space can perform at most 1051 operations per second on at most 1031 bits of information [see Seth Lloyd, "Ultimate physical limits to computation." Nature 406, 1047-1054 (2000)]. A fully-populated 128-bit storage pool would contain 2^128 blocks = 2^137 bytes = 2^140 bits; therefore the minimum mass required to hold the bits would be (2^140 bits) / (10^31 bits/kg) = 136 billion kg.
That's a lot of gear."
From the articles I've read, this was accomplished using (some subset of) ASC Purple, which is full of a lot of either custom or IBM-proprietary stuff (or else stuff that nobody but IBM seems to be using).
... Each login node has eight 10-gigabytes-per-second network connections for parallel file transfer protocol and two 1-gigabyte-per-second network connections for network file systems and secure shell protocol. The system has a three-stage 1,536 port dual plane Federation switch interconnect ..."
According to the published/unclassified spec sheet:
"Purple has 2 million gigabytes of storage from more than 11,000 Serial ATA and Fibre Channel disks.
I think that it was this last thing, the Federation interconnect, that they were pushing the data over in this test, since it forms the backbone of the machine and links the storage nodes to the login node controllers, which then connect to the login nodes themselves (of which there are apparently over 1,400 of, according to this). I couldn't find much information on Federation, as it seems to only be used in a few systems, of which Purple is the most notable. One reference I found seems to put it at 1.49 GB/sec (11.92 Gbit/s) bandwidth, although it's not clear if that's "dual plane" Federation or not. 4X SDR Infiniband is around 10 Gbit/sec, IIRC, so Federation's a little faster.
It does sound a little like it was a case of "hey, what can we do with $230M worth of hardware? I know, let's break some records." So they did. I'm not sure that there's anything there that anyone else couldn't do, with different technologies, given the same investment of capital -- it's just a matter of who else wants to, and has the capability.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Typical porn movies per hour (TPMH)??
AT&ROFLMAO
"Although we'd all like Moore's Law to continue forever, quantum mechanics imposes some fundamental limits on the computation rate and information capacity of any physical device. In particular, it has been shown that 1 kilogram of matter confined to 1 liter of space can perform at most 1051 operations per second on at most 1031 bits of information
Um, no, that's wrong.
Bremmermann's Limit is the maximum computational speed in the physical universe (as defined by relativity and quantum mechanical limitations) and is approximately 2 x 10^47 bits per second per gram (or, for those who prefer sexagesimal, one jezend, 60^11, bits per second per gram).
Bousso's covariant entropy bound also called the holographic bound is a theoretical refinement on the Bekenstein Bound that may define the limit of how compact information may be stored, based on current understanding of quantum mechanical limits, and is theorized to be equal to approximately one yezend (60^37, or ~10^66) bits of information contained in a space enclosed by a spherical surface of 1 sq. cm.
Given this, 1 kg of matter can perform approximately 2 x 10^50 bit operations per second per kilogram, in a space much smaller than 1 liter of space. Of course, other physical constraints (non-quantum related) probably limits us to a couple of orders of magnitude less computation, in a couple of orders of magnitude more space, but of course what those limits might be is very speculative
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy