When are diskless compute nodes inappropriate?

Arthur H. Edwards edwardsa at plk.af.mil
Tue Jul 15 17:16:43 EDT 2003


If you are running large numbers of jobs that read and write to disk,
local disk can be much more stable. We have been running an essentially 
serial application on many nodes and in both cases where we were writing
to a parallel file system, the app would consistently crash.

Art Edwards

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:48:05AM -0400, Tod Hagan wrote:
> Okay, I'm convinced by the arguments in favor of diskless compute
> nodes, including cost savings applicable elsewhere, reduced power
> consumption, and increased reliability through the elimination of
> moving parts.
> 
> With all the arguments against disks, what are the arguments in favor
> of diskful compute nodes? In particular, what are the situations or
> types of jobs for which a cluster with a high percentage of diskless
> nodes is contraindicated?
> 
> I look forward to learning from the list's collective wisdom.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

-- 
Art Edwards
Senior Research Physicist
Air Force Research Laboratory
Electronics Foundations Branch
KAFB, New Mexico

(505) 853-6042 (v)
(505) 846-2290 (f)
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf



More information about the Beowulf mailing list