Mailing-List: contact common-user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 216.145.54.173 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com)
From: Charles Wimmer <cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "common-user@hadoop.apache.org" <common-user@hadoop.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:26:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
Thread-Topic: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
Thread-Index: AQHMWHDTnNcTnKLEYU+PUBGmmZbyGJUYhtoA//+vUKCAAFWXAP//rVvQgAABhnM=
Message-ID: <CA69A538.4FDDB%cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <E236CD55EC618B4884CA7273B31AA078074B82E4@stlwexmbxprd04.na.ds.monsanto.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_CA69A5384FDDBcwimmeryahooinccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_CA69A5384FDDBcwimmeryahooinccom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We currently use P410s in 12 disk system.  Each disk is set up as a RAID0 v=
olume.  Performance is at least as good as a bare disk.


On 8/11/11 3:23 PM, "GOEKE, MATTHEW (AG/1000)" <matthew.goeke@monsanto.com>=
 wrote:

If I read that email chain correctly then they were referring to the classi=
c JBOD vs multiple disks striped together conversation. The conversation th=
at was started here is referring to JBOD vs 1 RAID 0 per disk and the effec=
ts of the raid controller on those independent raids.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Voigt [mailto:k@123.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:17 PM
To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop

Yahoo did some testing 2 years ago: http://markmail.org/message/xmzc45zi25h=
tr7ry

But updated benchmark would be interesting to see.

Kai

Am 12.08.2011 um 00:13 schrieb GOEKE, MATTHEW (AG/1000):

> My assumption would be that having a set of 4 raid 0 disks would actually=
 be better than having a controller that allowed pure JBOD of 4 disks due t=
o the cache on the controller. If anyone has any personal experience with t=
his I would love to know performance numbers but our infrastructure guy is =
doing tests on exactly this over the next couple days so I will pass it alo=
ng once we have it.
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bharath Mundlapudi [mailto:bharathwork@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:00 PM
> To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
>
> True, you need a P410 controller. You can create RAID0 for each disk to m=
ake it as JBOD.
>
>
> -Bharath
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Koert Kuipers <koert@tresata.com>
> To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:50 PM
> Subject: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
>
> Hello all,
> We are considering using low end HP proliant machines (DL160s and DL180s)
> for cluster nodes. However with these machines if you want to do more tha=
n 4
> hard drives then HP puts in a P410 raid controller. We would configure th=
e
> RAID controller to function as JBOD, by simply creating multiple RAID
> volumes with one disk. Does anyone have experience with this setup? Is it=
 a
> good idea, or am i introducing a i/o bottleneck?
> Thanks for your help!
> Best, Koert
> This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential informatio=
n, and is intended to be received only by persons entitled
> to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, p=
lease notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and
> all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other u=
se of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.
>
> All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, =
reading and archival by Monsanto, including its
> subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for chec=
king for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".
> Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damag=
e caused by any such code transmitted by or accompanying
> this e-mail or any attachment.
>
>
> The information contained in this email may be subject to the export cont=
rol laws and regulations of the United States, potentially
> including but not limited to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) =
and sanctions regulations issued by the U.S. Department of
> Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC).  As a recipient of thi=
s information you are obligated to comply with all
> applicable U.S. export laws and regulations.
>
>

--
Kai Voigt
k@123.org


--_000_CA69A5384FDDBcwimmeryahooinccom_--