1

I have access to roughly 80 TB of capacity via a SAN, which I want to set up as as 2 NFS shares: 1 share of 70 TB and 1 share of 10 TB. The 10 TB share will have full backup to tape, whereas the 70 TB share will have no backup. Using LVM I will set up two logical volumes, one for each of these shares. The usage of these two NFS shares is to serve files to a cluster of roughly 20 nodes running Torque cluster software, as well a few nodes with Rstudio. I expect to have around 10-20 users accessing the system at any given time.

Now, prior to setting up the volumes, the capacity on the SAN will need to be divided into LUNs. Given the scenario above what would be a acceptable LUN size? I am aware that one possible factor in deciding LUN size is performance vs maintenance i.e. fewer LUNs have lower maintenance but lower performance as well. Given this, a logical LUN size would seems to be 2.5 or 5 TB as the number of LUNs is not too high, but I get some advantage of multiple LUN performance.

Is this an appropriate LUN size, or should I consider alternatives?

Edit:

Client OS: Centos 6.6 Network: From NFS file server to SAN, 2 10 gigabit network connections in round robin.

  • 1
    Any details on the operating systems in use, the networking setup and the make/manufacturer and model of your SAN? – ewwhite May 28 '15 at 18:49
  • I have edited post. For SAN, I will inquire with guys in IT. Thanks. – Vince May 28 '15 at 18:56
  • 1
    I don't understand the question - can't you just have one 80TB PV, and 80TB VG and then 70TB and 10TB LVs? Why are you considering 'carving' it up like this? – Chopper3 May 28 '15 at 19:45
  • That is my question. Is there any good reason to carve it up? Or just do as you suggest. I thought there may be some performance improvement in having multiple LUNs. – Vince May 28 '15 at 20:31

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.