If there's intent to use this for performance comparisons between releases, I would propose that you include rotational drive(s), as well. It will be quite some time before everyone is running pure NVME/SSD clusters with the storage costs associated with that type of workload, and this should be reflected in test clusters. On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 6:25 PM Dan Mick <dmick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ceph has been completely ported to build and run on ARM hardware > (architecture arm64/aarch64), but we're unable to test it due to lack of > hardware. We propose to purchase a significant number of ARM servers > (50+?) to install in our upstream Sepia test lab to use for upstream > testing of Ceph, alongside the x86 hardware we already own. > > This message is to start a discussion of what the nature of that > hardware should be, and an investigation as to what's available and how > much it might cost. The general idea is to build something arm64-based > that is similar to the smithi/gibba nodes: > > https://wiki.sepia.ceph.com/doku.php?id=hardware:gibba > > Some suggested features: > > * base hardware/peripheral support for current releases of RHEL, CentOS, > Ubuntu > * 1 fast and largish (400GB+) NVME drive for OSDs (it will be > partitioned into 4-5 subdrives for tests) > * 1 large (1TB+) SSD/HDD for boot/system and logs (faster is better but > not as crucial as for cluster storage) > * Remote/headless management (IPMI?) > * At least 1 10G network interface per host > * Order of 64GB main memory per host > > Density is valuable to the lab; we have space but not an unlimited amount. > > Any suggestions on vendors or specific server configurations? > > Thanks! > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |