Re: PCIe flash device for cdimage.debian.org?
Hi,
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:39:19 +0200 (MEST)
Mattias Wadenstein <maswan@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> >> Thanks for your comment about PCIe flash device usage on https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/o87yji5j/
> >>
> >>> Anything that's compile intensive / something like cdimage.debian.org
> >>> that is serving large files and may be IO bound / the package search
> >>> engine for Debian since that takes a lot of memory and would be heavily used.
> >>
> >> You mean, building cdimage on cdimage.debian.org, or serving cdimage
> >> on that? If it can reduce much build time, it is worth to try, IMO.
> >
> > Actually, that's a really good idea. CD builds are *very* IO-heavy and
> > involve lots of random-access and small reads and writes. SSD would be
> > a nice fit if we can get something large enough - we need to keep a
> > local mirror and the temporary build trees in a single
> > filesystem. Currently we're using ~900GB of a 2TB filesystem.
Can we try to spend money for this?
Is there more detail about building CD image? It's necessary to analyze
how much we can reduce build time.
# And I hope dpkg will enable xz by default after wheezy will reduce these
build space :) It means, save our money...
> I would add that for serving cdimage.d.o to the public/other mirrors a
> really fast SSD is rather far from what we need. The biggest current need
> there is a replacement of the backend storage that is starting to see
> stability issues, and what would fit in there best is half a rack to a
> rack of SATA JBOD drawers with SAS or FCAL uplinks.
>
> The caching frontends could, in theory, get a bit faster with a set of
> SSDs, but curently we don't really have much problems in saturating as
> much as we are allowed to of the whole university's 10Gbit uplink using
> spinning disks. See http://ftp.acc.umu.se/about/ for the architecutre of
> the cluster that handles the public-facing parts of cdimage.d.o.
PCIe flash device can provide simple configuration, many SAS disks would be
broken easily but it isn't. It maybe worth for asking some vendors to
provide their device in lower price to provide your public ftp service, IMHO.
# However, 43TiB maybe huge...
--
Regards,
Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
Reply to: