hadoop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pamecha, Abhishek" <apame...@x.com>
Subject Re: HDFS using SAN
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:08:46 GMT
Yes, I had similar views from  the netapp paper.  My usecase is io heavy and that's why ( atleast
IMO), when data set grows, a shared SAN begins to make less sense as opposed to DAS for MR
type of jobs.

As Lucas pointed out, sharing the same data with other apps is a great adv. w SAN.

Thanks
Abhishek


i Sent from my iPad with iMstakes

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:59, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com<mailto:michael_segel@hotmail.com>>
wrote:

I haven't played with a NetApp box, but the way it has been explained to me is that your SAN
appears as if its direct attached storage.
Its possible, based on drives and other hardware, plus it looks like they are focusing on
read times only.

I'd contact a NetApp rep for a better answer.

Actually if you are looking at a higher density in terms of storage, going with a storage
/ compute cluster  makes sense.

On Oct 18, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Jitendra Kumar Singh <jksingh26jun@gmail.com<mailto:jksingh26jun@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi,

In the NetApp whitepaper on SAN solution (link given by Kevin) it makes following statement.
Can someone please elaborate (or give a link that explains) how 12-disk in SAN can give 2000
IOPS while if used as JBOD would give 600 IOPS?

"The E2660 can deliver up to 2,000 IOPS
from a 12-disk stripe (the bottleneck being the 12 disks). This headroom translates into better
read times
for those 64KB blocks. Twelve copies of 12 MapReduce jobs reading from 12 SATA disks can at
best
never exceed 12 x 50 IOPS, or 600 IOPS. The E2660 volume has five times the IOPS headroom,
which
translates into faster read times and high MapReduce throughput "

Thanks and Regards,
--
Jitendra Kumar Singh



On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Luca Pireddu <pireddu@crs4.it<mailto:pireddu@crs4.it>>
wrote:
On 10/18/2012 02:21 AM, Pamecha, Abhishek wrote:
Tom

Do you mean you are using GPFS instead of HDFS? Also, if you can share,
are you deploying it as DAS set up or a SAN?

Thanks,

Abhishek



Though I don't think I'd buy a SAN for a new Hadoop cluster, we have a SAN and are using it
*instead of HDFS* with a small/medium Hadoop MapReduce cluster (up to 100 nodes or so, depending
on our need).  We still use the local node disks for intermediate data (mapred local storage).
 Although this set-up does limit our possibility to scale to a large number of nodes, that's
not a concern for us.  On the plus, we gain the flexibility to be able to share our cluster
with non-Hadoop users at our centre.


--
Luca Pireddu
CRS4 - Distributed Computing Group
Loc. Pixina Manna Edificio 1
09010 Pula (CA), Italy
Tel: +39 0709250452



Mime
View raw message