Daniel,

> I'd really, really, rather have smaller nodes: single sockets, less
> drives per node. Our unit of failure is a node, so I'd rather do
> recovery in smaller, rather than larger pieces. "We just lost a
> node; there goes 100TB; wait, what?"

	We need 65PB of data for DR11.  We're scheduled to have around
250 nodes.  That means 65PB/250 = 260TB per node (with replicas).  Each
chunk is going to be at least a TB.

	There's a lot more overhead for few-core, few-spindle blade-like
servers than many-core, many-spindle boxes; I think there's going to be an
ever-increasing minimum size to get good cost-effectiveness.

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, LSST Data Management, [log in to unmask]

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1