[Twg] [Discuss] no TWG today (6/14/2012)

[John Carrier]

If we follow Cory's suggestion, what else should we update in the appendix table?  


-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Spitz [mailto:spitzcor at cray.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:10 AM
To: John Carrier
Cc: twg at lists.opensfs.org; discuss at lists.opensfs.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] no TWG today (6/14/2012)

John,

I think that we should keep the requirements table up to date.  It
shouldn't be much work.  It just might mean that we just update the 2.2
column with a few changes and delete the Q2 2012 column altogether.

I think most of the 2.2 column is correct, but the maximum file size
should be 31.25 PB since the new max stripe count is 2000.

We should also add a row for maximum # of MDTs too.

Thanks,
-Cory


On 06/14/2012 09:26 AM, John Carrier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> We will not have a TWG meeting today.   The Board has not yet made a
> decision on our recommendation concerning the 2012 requirements we
> submitted.
> 
>  
> 
> There have been a couple of questions raised by Board members.  The
> issues and our proposed resolution are below. 
> 
>  
> 
> 1)      Order of requirements in the "gathered requirements" section
> As I mentioned in a previous email, I rearranged the categories and
> requirements within each category to match the order described in our
> "recommendations" section.   
> 
> 2)      2011 Required Rates and Capacities
> The table was created as part of our 2011 requirements investigation.  I
> saved it as an appendix so that work wouldn't be lost.  Some of the
> Board members want us to update the table to reflect current limits,
> since some of the data there is no longer accurate.  For example, the
> Lustre 2.2 column was a best guess in 2011 and could be updated with
> real data now that 2.2 is released.
> 
> Do we need to spend the time updating the table?  I proposed to the
> board that we delete the table from the appendix and revise it as part
> of next year's requirements document.   What do you think?
> 
> 3)      Lack of explicit recommendations
> Last year there was broad agreement that metadata performance was the
> single category requiring the greatest effort.  This year there were
> several categories fairly equally represented in the members' top 10
> picks.  Our recommendation was to have OpenSFS initiate projects in each
> of the top four categories so that we can make incremental progress on
> all fronts this year rather than choosing just one category and waiting
> until next year to address the other categories.
> 
> However, if the Board prefers to focus on just one category, then "File
> system availability and robustness" was the very clear winner this year,
> as the voting spreadsheet shows (http://goo.gl/Lqg7s).  Some of the LNET
> work could be embodied under this umbrella since LNET contributes to
> availability and robustness of Lustre.   I have asked the Board to
> clarify if they require this refinement.
> 
> The current version of the doc is on google docs
>  (http://goo.gl/63u9Q).    Please send feedback to the lists.
> 
>  
> 
> --jc
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-opensfs.org