Mailing-List: contact common-user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mohitanchlia@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA69A538.4FDDB%cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com>
References: 
 <E236CD55EC618B4884CA7273B31AA078074B82E4@stlwexmbxprd04.na.ds.monsanto.com>
	<CA69A538.4FDDB%cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:15:00 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOT3TWr61ztof8-AQ3upBwdckS8ns+AmB6fBEJhzJxkrUze_dA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question about RAID controllers and hadoop
From: Mohit Anchlia <mohitanchlia@gmail.com>
To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Charles Wimmer <cwimmer@yahoo-inc.com> wro=
te:
> We currently use P410s in 12 disk system. =A0Each disk is set up as a RAI=
D0 volume. =A0Performance is at least as good as a bare disk.

Can you please share what throughput you see with P410s? Are these SATA or =
SAS?

>
>
> On 8/11/11 3:23 PM, "GOEKE, MATTHEW (AG/1000)" <matthew.goeke@monsanto.co=
m> wrote:
>
> If I read that email chain correctly then they were referring to the clas=
sic JBOD vs multiple disks striped together conversation. The conversation =
that was started here is referring to JBOD vs 1 RAID 0 per disk and the eff=
ects 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/xmzc45zi2=
5htr7ry
>
> 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 actuall=
y be better than having a controller that allowed pure JBOD of 4 disks due =
to the cache on the controller. If anyone has any personal experience with =
this 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 al=
ong 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 =
make 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 th=
an 4
>> hard drives then HP puts in a P410 raid controller. We would configure t=
he
>> RAID controller to function as JBOD, by simply creating multiple RAID
>> volumes with one disk. Does anyone have experience with this setup? Is i=
t 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 informati=
on, and is intended to be received only by persons entitled
>> to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, =
please notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and
>> all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other =
use 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 che=
cking for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".
>> Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any dama=
ge 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 con=
trol 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). =A0As a recipient of =
this information you are obligated to comply with all
>> applicable U.S. export laws and regulations.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Kai Voigt
> k@123.org
>
>
>
>
>
>