[HN Gopher] 6 Raspberry Pis, 6 SSDs on a Mini ITX Motherboard ___________________________________________________________________ 6 Raspberry Pis, 6 SSDs on a Mini ITX Motherboard Author : ingve Score : 311 points Date : 2022-08-17 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.jeffgeerling.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.jeffgeerling.com) | alberth wrote: | Imagine instead of 6 Pi's this was 6 M2 arm chips on a mini-ITX | board. | dis-sys wrote: | That would cost 6 arms and 6 legs. | alberth wrote: | As a thought experiment, so the: | | - 8GB Pi cost $75 (Geekbench score of 318 single / 808 multi- | core) | | - 8GB M1 Mac mini cost $699 (Geek bench score of 1752 single | / 7718 multi-core) | | This isn't too far off linearly price scaling. | | The M1 Mac mini costs 9.3x more, but get 5.5x faster single- | core & 9.5x faster multi-core. | | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/15902536 | | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/15912650 | rbanffy wrote: | > The M1 Mac mini costs 9.3x more, but get 5.5x faster | single-core & 9.5x faster multi-core. | | It's not always that we get a Mac that has a better | price/performance than any other computer ;-) | | Their M-series is quite remarkable. | kllrnohj wrote: | You can get things like Epyc mini-ITX boards ( | https://www.anandtech.com/show/16277/asrock-rack-deep-mini-i... | ) if you're just looking to ramp up the compute in a tiny | space. Divide it up into 6 VMs if you still want it to be a | cluster even. | rbanffy wrote: | I find these boards - that get little boards and network them | into a cluster - very interesting. I'd like to see more of | these in the future. I hope someone makes a Framework- | compatible motherboard with these at some point. | | The Intel Edison module could have been a viable building block | for one (and it happened a long time ago in computing terms - | 2014) - it was self-contained, with RAM and storage on the | module - but it lacked ethernet to connect multiple ones on a | board - and I don't remember it having a fast external bus to | build a network on. And it was quickly discontinued. | AreYouSirius wrote: | tenebrisalietum wrote: | > Many people will say "just buy one PC and run VMs on it!", but | to that, I say "phooey." | | I mean with VM-leaking things like Spectre (not sure how much | similar things affect ARM tbh) having physical barriers between | your CPUs can be seen as a positive thing. | mrweasel wrote: | Sure, it's just that the Raspberry Pi isn't really fast enough | for most production workloads. Having a cluster of them doesn't | really help, you'd still be better off with a single PC. | | As a learning tool, having the ability to build a real hardware | cluster, in a MiniITX case is awesome. I do sort of wonder what | the business case for these boards are, I mean are there | actually enough people who want to do something like this... | schools maybe? I still think it's beyond weird that that there | are so much hardware available for build Pi clusters, but I | can't get an ARM desktop motherboard, with a PCI slot capable | of actually being used as a desktop, for a reasonable prices. | schaefer wrote: | The Nvidia Jetson AGX Orin Dev Kit is getting pretty damn | close to a performant Linux/ARM desktop system. | GB5 Scores (Single: 763/ Multi: 7193) That's roughly | 80% the performance of my current x86 desktop. | Ubuntu 20.04 LTS 12 Core Cortex A78AE v8.2 64 bit. 2.20 | Ghz 32 GB LDPDDR5 memory, 256 bit, 204.8 GB/s | NVIDIA graphics/AI acceleration. PCI-E Slot 64 Mb | eMMC 5.1 M.2 PCIe Gen 4 Display Port 1.4a +MST | | The deal breaker, if there is one is price: $2k | geerlingguy wrote: | I think a lot of these types of boards are built with the | business case of either "edge/IoT" (which still for some | reason causes people to toss money at them since they're hot | buzzwords... just need 5G too for the trifecta), or for | deploying many ARM cores/discrete ARM64 computers in a | space/energy-efficient manner. Some places need little ARM | build farms, and that's where I've seen the most non-hobbyist | interest in the CM4 blade, Turing Pi 2, and this board. | ReadTheLicense wrote: | The future of cloud is Zero Isolation... With all the | mitigation slowing it down, and the current energy prices and | rising, having super-small nodes that are always reserved to | one task seems interesting. | sitkack wrote: | Anyone else having problems with the shipping page? Says it | cannot ship to my address, formatted incorrectly ... | erulabs wrote: | Man, Ceph really doesn't get enough love. For all the distributed | systems hype out there - be it Kubernetes or blockchains or | serverless - the ol' rock solid distributed storage systems sat | in the background iterating like crazy. | | We had a _huge_ Rook /Ceph installation in the early days of our | startup before we killed off the product that used it (sadly). It | did explode under some rare unusual cases, but I sometimes miss | it! For folks who aren't aware, a rough TLDR is that Ceph is to | ZFS/LVM what Kubernetes is to containers. | | This seems like a very cool board for a Ceph lab - although - | extremely expensive - and I say that as someone who sells very | expensive Raspberry Pi based computers! | halbritt wrote: | I love it, but when it fails at scale, it can be hard to reason | about. Or at least that was the case when I was using it a few | years back. Still keen to try it again and see what's changed. | I haven't run it since bluestore was released. | teraflop wrote: | Yeah, I've been running a small Ceph cluster at home, and my | only real issue with it is the relative scarcity of good | _conceptual_ documentation. | | I personally learned about Ceph from a coworker and fellow | distributed systems geek who's a big fan of the design. So I | kind of absorbed a lot of the concepts before I ever actually | started using it. There have been quite a few times where I | look at a command or config parameter, and think, "oh, I know | what that's _probably_ doing under the hood "... but when I | try to actually check that assumption, the documentation is | missing, or sparse, or outdated, or I have to "read between | the lines" of a bunch of different pages to understand what's | really happening. | geerlingguy wrote: | I think many people (myself included) had been burned by major | disasters on earlier clustered storage solutions (like early | Gluster installations). Ceph seems to have been under the radar | for a bit of time when it got to a more stable/usable point, | and came more in the limelight once people started deploying | Kubernetes (and Rook, and more integrated/wholistic clustered | storage solutions). | | So I think a big part of Ceph's success (at least IMO) was its | timing, and it's adoption into a more cloud-first ecosystem. | That narrowed the use cases down from what the earliest | networked storage software were trying to solve. | mcronce wrote: | Ceph is fantastic. I use it as the storage layer in my homelab. | I've done some things that I can only concisely describe as | _super fucked up_ to this Ceph cluster, and every single time I | 've come out the other side with zero data loss, not having to | restore a backup. | erulabs wrote: | Haha "super fucked up" is a much better way of describing the | "usual, rare" situations I was putting it into as well :P | dylan604 wrote: | Care to provide examples of what these things were that you | were doing to a storage pool? I guess I'm just not | imaginative enough to think about ways of using a storage | pool other than storing data in it. | erulabs wrote: | In our case we were a free-to-use-without-any-signup way | of testing Kubernetes. You could just go to the site and | spin up pods. Looking back, it was a bit insane. | | Anyways, you can imagine we had all sorts of attacks and | miners or other abusive software running. This on top of | using ephemeral nodes for our free service meant hosts | were always coming and going and ceph was always busy | migrating data around. The wrong combo of nodes dying and | bursting traffic and beta versions of Rook meant we ran | into a huge number of edge cases. We did some | optimization and re-design, but it turned out there just | weren't enough folks interested in paying for multi- | tenant Kubernetes. We did learn an absolute ton about | multi-tenant K8s, so, if anyone is running into those | challenges, feel free to hire us :P | Lex-2008 wrote: | not OP, but I would start with filling disk space up to | 100%, or creating zillions of empty files. In case of | distributed filesystems - maybe removing one node (under | heavy load preferably), or "cloning" nodes so they had | same UUIDs (preferably nodes storing some data on them - | to see if the data will be de-duplicated somehow). | | Or just a disk with unreliable USB connection? | 3np wrote: | We're more and more feeling we made the wrong call with | gluster... The underlying bricks being a POSIX fs felt a lot | safer at the time but in hindsight ceph or one of the newer | ones would probably have been a better choice. So much | inexplicable behavior. For your sake I hope the grass really is | greener. | rwmj wrote: | Red Hat (owner of Gluster) has announced EOL in 2024: | https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhs/ | | Ceph is where the action is now. | imiric wrote: | Can someone with experience with Ceph and MinIO or SeaweedFS | comment on how they compare? | | I currently run a single-node SnapRAID setup, but would like to | expand to a distributed one, and would ideally prefer something | simple (which is why I chose SnapRAID over ZFS). Ceph feels to | enterprisey and complex for my needs, but at the same time, I | wouldn't want to entrust my data to a simpler project that can | have major issues I only discover years down the road. | | SeaweedFS has an interesting comparison[1], but I'm not sure | how biased it is. | | [1]: https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs#compared-to-ceph | nik736 wrote: | Ceph seems to be always related to big block storage outages. | This is why I am very wary of using it. Has this changed? Edit: | rephrased a bit | antongribok wrote: | Ceph is incredibly stable and resilient. | | I've run Ceph at two Fortune 50 companies since 2013 to now, | and I've not lost a single production object. We've had | outages, yes, but not because of Ceph, it was always | something else causing cascading issues. | | Today I have a few dozen clusters with over 250 PB total | storage, some on hardware with spinning rust that's over 5 | years old, and I sleep very well at night. I've been doing | storage for a long time, and no other system, open source or | enterprise, has given me such a feeling of security in | knowing my data is safe. | | Any time I read about a big Ceph outage, it's always a bunch | of things that should have never been allowed in production, | compounded by non-existent monitoring, and poor understanding | of how Ceph works. | shrubble wrote: | Can you talk about the method that Ceph has for determining | whether there was bit rot in a system? | | My understanding is that you have to run a separate | task/process that has Ceph go through its file structures | and check it against some checksums. Is it a separate step | for you, do you run it at night, etc.? | lathiat wrote: | That's called ceph scrub & deep-scrub. | | By default it "scrubs" basic metadata daily and does a | deep scrub where it fully reads the object and confirms | the checksum is correct from all 3 replicas weekly for | all of the data in the cluster. | | It's automatic and enabled by default. | shrubble wrote: | So what amount of disk bandwidth/usage is involved? | | For instance, say that I have 30TB of disk space used and | it is across 3 replicas , thus 3 systems. | | When I kick off the deep scrub operation, what amiunt of | reads will happen on each system? Just the smaller amount | of metadata or the actual full size of the files | themselves? | teraflop wrote: | In Ceph, objects are organized into placement groups | (PGs), and a scrub is performed on one PG at a time, | operating on all replicas of that PG. | | For a normal scrub, only the metadata (essentially, the | list of stored objects) is compared, so the amount of | data read is very small. For a deep scrub, each replica | reads and verifies the contents of all its data, and | compares the hashes with its peers. So a deep scrub of | all PGs ends up reading the entire contents of every | disk. (Depending on what you mean by "disk space used", | that could be 30TB, or 30TBx3.) | | The deep scrub frequency is configurable, so e.g. if each | disk is fast enough to sequentially read its entire | contents in 24 hours, and you choose to deep-scrub every | 30 days, you're devoting 1/30th of your total IOPS to | scrubbing. | | Note that "3 replicas" is not necessarily the same as "3 | systems". The normal way to use Ceph is that if you set a | replication factor of 3, each PG has 3 replicas that are | _chosen_ from your pool of disks /servers; a cluster with | N replicas and N servers is just a special case of this | (with more limited fault-tolerance). In a typical | cluster, any given scrub operation only touches a small | fraction of the disks at a time. | teraflop wrote: | Just to add to the other comment: Ceph checksums data and | metadata on every read/write operation. So even if you | completely disable scrubbing, if data on a disk becomes | corrupted, the OSD will detect it and the client will | transparently fail over to another replica, rather than | seeing bad data or an I/O error. | | Scrubbing is only necessary to _proactively_ detect bad | sectors or silent corruption on infrequently-accessed | data, so that you can replace the drive early without | losing redundancy. | aftbit wrote: | Imagine being able to buy 6 Raspberry Pis! I have so many | projects I'd like to do, both personal and semi-commercial, but | it's been literal years since I've seen a Raspberry Pi 4 | available in stock somewhere in the USA, let alone 6. | hackeraccount wrote: | Crap. When did that happen? I swear I bought like two or three | not that long ago and they were like 40 or 50 apiece. | tssva wrote: | Micro Center often has them in stock. My local Micro Center | currently has 17 RPi 4 4GB in stock. They are available only in | store, but you can check stock at their website. Find one you | know someone close to that is willing to purchase for you and | ship. | alexk307 wrote: | Cool but I still can't find a single raspberry pi compute module | despite having been in the market for 2 years... | simcop2387 wrote: | https://rpilocator.com/ is probably the best place to keep an | eye out for them. This is unfortunately also the case for non- | CM rpis. Been wanting to get some more pi4s to replace some | rather old pi3 (non+) that i've got running just because i want | the uefi boot on everything since it makes managing things that | much easier. | mongol wrote: | Yes when will this dry spell end? | geerlingguy wrote: | So far it seems like "maybe 2023"... this year supplies have | been _slightly_ better, but not amazing. Usually a couple CM4 | models pop up over the course of a week on rpilocator.com. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > I was able to get 70-80 MB/sec write speeds on the cluster, and | 110 MB/sec read speeds. Not too bad, considering the entire | thing's running over a 1 Gbps network. You can't really increase | throughput due to the Pi's IO limitations--maybe in the next | generation of Pi, we can get faster networking! | | This isn't clear to me. What am I missing? | gorkish wrote: | The device has an onboard 8 port unmanaged gigabit switch. The | two external ports are just switch ports and cannot be | aggregated in any way. The entire cluster is therefore limited | effectively to 1gbps throughput. | | IMO it ruins the product utterly and completely. They should | have integrated a switch IC similar to what's used in the | netgear gs110mx which has 8 gigabit and 2 multi-gig interfaces. | geerlingguy wrote: | It would be really cool if they could split out 2.5G | networking to all the Pis, but with the current generation of | Pi it only has one PCIe lane, so you'd have to add in a PCIe | switch for each Pi if you still wanted those M.2 NVMe | slots... that adds a lot of cost and complexity. | | Failing that, a 2.5G external port would be the simplest way | to make this thing more viable as a storage cluster board, | but that would drive up the switch chip cost a bit (cutting | into margins). So the last thing would be allowing management | of the chip (I believe this Realtek chip does allow it, but | it's not exposed anywhere), so you could do link | aggregation... but that's not possible here either. So yeah, | the 1 Gbps is a bummer. Still fun for experimentation, and | very niche production use cases, but less useful generally. | lathiat wrote: | 110MB/s is gigabit. It's limited to gigabit networking and only | has 1Gbps out from the cluster board. So there's no way to do | an aggregate speed of more than 1Gbps/110MBs on this particular | cluster board. | | If each pis Ethernet was broken out individually and you used a | 10G uplink switch or multiple 1G client ports then you could do | better. | | The write speed being lower than the read speed will be because | writes have to be replicated to two other nodes in the ceph | cluster (everything has 3 replicas) which are also sharing | bandwidth on those same 1G links. Reads don't need to replicate | so can consume the full bandwidth. | | So basically it's all network limited for this use case. Needs | a 2.5G uplink, LACP link aggregation or individual Ethernet | ports to do better. | sitkack wrote: | Which ICs would you use for this? Do you have something in | mind? | Retr0id wrote: | I'm not sure about specific ICs, but if you took a look | inside a Netgear GS110MX you'd have a good candidate IC. | magicalhippo wrote: | Just a random search on Mouser, but something like the | BCM53134O[1] as four 1GbE ports, and one 2.5GbE port. A bit | pricier you have the BCM53156XU[2] with eight 1GbE ports | and a 10G port for fiber. | | Not my field so could be other, better parts. | | [1]: https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Broadcom- | Avago/BCM53134O... | | [2]: https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Broadcom- | Avago/BCM53156X... | CameronNemo wrote: | 110 Megabits == 880 Megabits, which is approaching the top | speed of the network interface, which is the main bottle neck. | A board with more IO, like the rk3568 which has 2x PCIe 2 lanes | and 2x PCIe 3 lanes, or a hypothetical rpi5, can deliver more | throughput. | naranha wrote: | Do you think Raspberries without ECC RAM are fine to use for a | Ceph storage cluster? I did some research yesterday on the same | topic, many say ECC Ram is essential for Ceph (and ZFS too). But | I'm not sure what to believe, sure data could get corrupted in | RAM before being written to the cluster, but how likely is that? | dpedu wrote: | ECC is not necessary for ZFS - this is a commonly repeated | myth. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14447297 | dijit wrote: | raspberry pi's have ECC memory; it's just on-die ECC. | | (this was a surprise to me too) | EvanAnderson wrote: | It sounds like the ECC counters are completely hidden from | the SoC, though: | https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=315415 | naranha wrote: | Sounds like what DDR5 is doing too, errors are corrected | automatically, but not necessarily communicated (?)/ | amarshall wrote: | DDR5 on-die ECC is _not_ the same as traditional ECC. To | that point, there are DDR5 modules with full ECC. On-die | DDR5 ECC is there because it _needs_ to be for the | modules to really work at all. | jonhohle wrote: | This looks incredible. Is it possible to expose a full PCI | interface from an NVMe slot? I have an old SAS controller that I | want to keep running. If I could do that from a PI, that would be | incredible. | geerlingguy wrote: | If you want to use SAS with the Pi, I've only gotten newer | generation Broadcom/LSI cards working so far--see my notes for | the storage controllers here: | https://pipci.jeffgeerling.com/#sata-cards-and-storage | jonhohle wrote: | Incredible resource, thanks! I'm currently using an older | MegaRAID card, but could upgrade if I can find a reasonable | configuration to migrate. | formerly_proven wrote: | > newer | | Which is probably for the best - I don't know how these newer | cards behave, but a commonality of all the older RAID/HBA | cards seems to be "no power management allowed". Maybe they | improved that area, because it's pretty unreasonable for an | idle RAID card to burn double digit Watts if you ask me... | geerlingguy wrote: | The 9405W cards I most recently tested seem to consume | about 7W steady state (which is more than the Pi that was | driving it!), so yeah... they're still not quite as | efficient as running a smaller SATA card if you just need a | few drives. But if you want SAS or Tri-mode (NVMe/SAS/SATA) | and have an HBA or RAID card, this is a decent enough way | to do it! | mcronce wrote: | You can get M.2 to PCI-E add-in-card adapters, yeah - as long | as it's an M.2 slot that supports NVMe, not SATA only | crest wrote: | I don't see how they could have hooked a 2.5Gb/s Ethernet NIC | to the CM4 modules without using up the single PCI-e 2.0 lane | other than adding a power hungry, expensive and often out of | stock PCI-e switching chip. | wtallis wrote: | There's no such thing as an NVMe slot, just M.2 slots that have | PCIe lanes. NVMe is a protocol that runs on top of PCIe, and is | something that host systems support at the software level, not | in hardware. (Firmware support for NVMe is necessary to boot | off NVMe SSDs, but the Pi doesn't have that and must boot off | eMMC or SD cards.) | gorkish wrote: | Would buy this in an instant if it weren't hobbled as hell by the | onboard realtek switch. If it had an upstream 2.5/5/10g port it | would be instantly 6 times more capable. | antongribok wrote: | Aside from running Ceph as my day job, I have a 9-node Ceph | cluster on Rasberry Pi 4s at home that I've been running for a | year now, and I'm slowly starting to move things away from ZFS to | this cluster as my main storage. | | My setup is individual nodes, with 2.5" external HDDs (mostly | SMR), so I actually get sligtly better performance than this | cluster, and I'm using 4+2 erasure coding for the main data pool | for CephFS. | | CephFS has so far been incredibly stable and all my Linux laptops | reconnect to it after sleep with no issues (in this regard it's | better than NFS). | | I like this setup a lot better now than ZFS, and I'm slowly | starting to migrate away from ZFS, and now I'm even thinking of | setting up a second Ceph cluster. The best thing with Ceph is | that I can do a maintenance on a node at any time and storage | availability is never affected, with ZFS I've always dreaded any | kind of upgrade, and any reboot requires an outage. Plus with | Ceph I can add just one disk at a time to the cluster and disks | don't have to be the same size. Also, I can move the physical | nodes individually to a different part of my home, change | switches and network cabling without an outage now. It's a nice | feeling. | bityard wrote: | Is 9 the minimum number of nodes you need for a reasonable ceph | setup or is that just what you arrived at for your use case? | geerlingguy wrote: | I've seen setups with as few as 2 nodes with osds and a | monitor (so 3 in total), but I believe 4-5 nodes is the | minimum recommendation. | antongribok wrote: | I would say the minimum is whatever your biggest replication | or erasure coding config is, plus 1. So, with just replicated | setups, that's 4 nodes, and with EC 4+2, that's 7 nodes. With | EC 8+3, which is pretty common for object storage workloads, | that's 12 nodes. | | Note, a "node" or a failure domain, can be configured as a | disk, an actual node (default), a TOR switch, a rack, a row, | or even a datacenter. Ceph will spread the replicas across | those failure domains for you. | | At work, our bigger clusters can withstand a rack going down. | Also, the more nodes you have, the less of an impact it is on | the cluster when a node goes down, and the faster the | recovery. | | I started with 3 RPis then quickly expanded to 6, and the | only reason I have 9 nodes now is because that's all I could | find. | mbreese wrote: | Can I ask an off topic/in-no way RPi related question? | | For larger ceph clusters, how many disks/SSD/nvme are | usually attached to a single node? | | We are in the middle of transitioning from a handful of big | (3x60 disk, 1.5PB total) JBOD Gluster/ZFS arrays and I'm | trying to figure out how to migrate to a ceph cluster of | equivalent size. It's hard to figure out exactly what the | right size/configuration should be. And I've been using ZFS | for so long (10+ years) that thinking of _not_ having | healing zpools is a bit scary. | antongribok wrote: | For production, we have two basic builds, one for block | storage, which is all-flash, and one for object storage | which is spinning disks plus small NVMe for | metadata/Bluestore DB/WAL. | | The best way to run Ceph is to build as small a server as | you can get away with economically and scale that | horizontally to 10s or 100s of servers, instead of trying | to build a few very large vertical boxes. I have run Ceph | on some 4U 72-drive SuperMicro boxes, but it was not fun | trying to manage hundreds of thousands of threads on a | single Linux server (not to mention NUMA issues with | multiple sockets). An ideal server would be one node to | one disk, but that's usually not very economical. | | If you don't have access to custom ODM-type gear or | open-19 and other such exotics, what's been working for | me have been regular single socket 1U servers, both for | block and for object. | | For block, this is a very normal 1U box with 10x SFF SAS | or NVMe drives, single CPU, a dual 25Gb NIC. | | For spinning disk, again a 1U box, but with a deeper | chassis you can fit 12x LFF and still have room for a | PCI-based NVMe card, plus a dual 25Gb NIC. You can get | these from SuperMicro, Quanta, HP. | | Your 3x60 disk setup sounds like it might fit in 12U | (assuming 3x 4U servers). With our 1U servers I believe | that can be done with 15x 1U servers (1.5 PiB usable | would need roughly 180x 16TB disks with EC 8+3, you'll | need more with 3x replication). | | Of course, if you're trying to find absolute minimum | requirements that you can get away with, we'd have to | know a lot more details about your workload and existing | environment. | | EDITING to add: | | Our current production disk sizes are either 7.68 or | 15.36 TB for SAS/NVMe SSDs at 1 DWPD or less, and 8 TB | for spinning disk. I want to move to 16 TB drives, but | haven't done so for various tech and non-tech reasons. | lathiat wrote: | For the standard 3x replicated setup, 3 nodes is the minimum | for any kind of practical redundancy but you really want 4 so | that after failure of 1 node all the data can be recovered | onto the other 3 and still have failure resiliency. | | For erasure coded setups which is not really suited to block | storage but mainly object storage via radosgw(s3) or cephfs | you need minimum k+m and realistically k+m+1. That would | translate to 6 minimum but realistically 7 nodes for k=4,m=2. | That's 4 data chunks and 2 redundant chunks which means you | use 1.5x the storage of the raw data (half that of a | replicated setup). You can do k=2,m=1 also. So 4 nodes into | that case. | [deleted] | kllrnohj wrote: | I was running glusterfs on an array of ODROID-HC2s ( | https://www.hardkernel.com/shop/odroid-hc2-home-cloud-two/ ) | and it was fun, but I've since migrated back to just a single | big honking box (specifically a threadripper 1920x running | unraid). Monitoring & maintaining an array of systems was its | own IT job that kinda didn't seem worth dealing with. | trhway wrote: | Looking at that ODROID-HC2 i wonder when the drive | manufacturers would just integrate such a general computer | board onto the drive itself. | Infernal wrote: | I want to preface this - I don't have strong opinion already | here, and I'm curious about Ceph. As someone who runs a 6 drive | raidz2 at home (w/ ECC RAM) does your Ceph config give you | similar data integrity guarantees to ZFS? If so, what are the | key points of the config that enable that? | antongribok wrote: | When Ceph migrated from Filestore to Bluestore, that enabled | data scrubbing and checksumming for data (older versions | before Bluestore were only verifying metadata). | | Ceph (by default) does metadata scrubs every 24 hours, and | data scrubs (deep-scrub) weekly (configurable, and you can | manually scrub individual PGs at any time if that's your | thing). I believe the default checksum used is "crc32c", and | it's configurable, but I've not played with changing it. At | work we get scrub errors on average maybe weekly now, at home | I've not had a scrub error yet on this cluster in the past | year (I did have a drive that failed and still needs to be | replaced). | | My RPi setup certainly does not have ECC RAM as far as I'm | aware, but neither does my current ZFS setup (also a 6 drive | RAIDZ2). | | Nothing stopping you from running Ceph on boxes with ECC RAM, | we certainly do that at my job. | magicalhippo wrote: | If you take say old i7 4770k's, how many of those along with | how many disks would you need to get 1GB/s sustained sequential | access with Ceph? | | My single ZFS box does that with ease, 3x mirrored vdevs = 6 | disks total, but I'm curious as the flexibility of Ceph sounds | tempting. | antongribok wrote: | I just setup a test cluster at work to test this for you: | | 4 nodes, each node with 2x SAS SSDs, dual 25Gb NICs (one for | front-end, one for back-end replication). The test pool is 3x | replicated with Snappy compression enabled. | | On a separate client (also with 25Gb) I mounded an RBD image | with krbd and ran FIO: fio | --filename=/dev/rbd1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write | --bs=4096K --numjobs=1 --iodepth=16 --ramp_time=5 | --runtime=60 --ioengine=libaio --time_based --group_reporting | --name=krbd-test --eta-newline=5s | | I get a consistent 1.4 GiB/s: write: | IOPS=357, BW=1431MiB/s (1501MB/s)(83.9GiB/60036msec) | underwater247 wrote: | I would love to hear more about your Ceph setup. Specifically | how you are connecting your drives and how many drives per | node? I imagine with the Pis limited USB bus bandwidth, your | cluster performs as more of an archive data store compared to | realtime read/write like the backing block storage of VMs. I | have been wanting to build a Ceph test cluster and it sounds | like this type of setup might do the trick. | aloer wrote: | Considering that this is custom made for the CM4 form factor, the | Turing Pi with carrier boards looks much more attractive because | future proof. If only it were already available. | | It also has SATA and USB 3.0 which is nice | | Until I can preorder one I will slowly stock up on CM4s and hope | I'll get there before pi5 comes out. | | Are there other boards like this? | mhd wrote: | Can I run a Beowulf cluster on this? | oblak wrote: | Credit where it's due - this is some 18 watt awesomeness at idle. | Is it more "practical" than doing a Mini-ITX (or smaller, like | one of those super small tomtom with up to 5900HX) build and | equipping it with one one or more NVME expansion cards? Probably | not. But it's cool. | | Now, if there were a new Pi to buy. Isn't it time for the 5? It's | been 3 years for most of which they've been hard to fine. Mine | broke and I really miss it because having a full blown desktop | doing little things makes no sense, especially during the summer. | formerly_proven wrote: | 18 W idle is kinda horrible if you just want a small server | (granted, this isn't one server, but instead six set-top boxes | in one). That's recycled entry-level rack server range, which | come with ILOM/BMC. Most old-ish fat clients can do <10 W, some | <5 W, no problem. If you want a desktop that consumes little | power when idle or not loaded a lot, just get basically any | Intel system with an IGP since 4th gen (Haswell). Avoid Ryzen | CPU with dGPU if that's your goal; those are gas guzzlers. | oblak wrote: | 1. I would bet at least half of all that wattage is the SSDs. | | 2. Buddy, you're spewing BS at someone who used to run a | Haswell in a really small Mini-ITX case. It was a fine HTPC | back in 2014. But now everything, bar my dead Pi, is some | kind of Ryzen. All desktops and laptops. The various | 4800u/5800u/6800u and lower parts offer tremendous | performance at 15W nominal power levels. The 5800H I am | writing this message on is hardly a guzzler, especially when | compared to Intel's core11/12 parts. | | This random drive-by intel shilling really took me by | surprise. | formerly_proven wrote: | > 1. I would bet at least half of all that wattage is the | SSDs. | | SSDs are really good at consuming nearly nothing when not | servicing I/O. | | > 2. Buddy, you're spewing BS ... various 4800u/5800u/6800u | ... 5800H ... | | None of those SKUs are a "Ryzen CPU with dGPU". | oblak wrote: | SSD can get to really low power levels, depending on | state. Does not mean they were all in power sipping 10mW | mode during measurement. | | > just get basically any Intel system with an IGP since | 4th gen (Haswell). Avoid Ryzen CPU with dGPU | | Was your advice to me. So I took it at face value and | compared them, like you suggested, to the relevant | models. | technofiend wrote: | I will once again lament the fact that WD Labs built SBCs that | sat with their hard drives to make them individual CEPH nodes but | never took the hardware to production. It seems to me there's | still a market for SBCs that could serve a CEPH OSD on a per- | device basis, although with ever increasing density in the | storage and hyperconverged space that's probably more of a small | business or prosumer solution. | hinkley wrote: | I think there's something to be said for sizing a raspberry pi or | a clone to fit into a hard drive slot. | | I also think the TuringPi people screwed up with the model 2. | Model 2 of a product should not have fewer slots than the | predecessor, and in the case of the Turing Pi, orchestrating 4 | devices is not particularly compelling. It's not that difficult | to wire 4 Pi's together by hand. I had 6 clones wired together | using risers and powered by my old Anker charging station and an | 8 port switch, with a few magnets to hold the whole thing | together. | rabuse wrote: | If only Raspberry Pi's weren't damn near $200 now... | greggyb wrote: | Unless you are constrained in space to a single ITX case as in | this example, you can get whole x86 machines for <$100 with RAM | and storage included. | | There is a lot of choice in the <$150 range. You could get | eight of these and a cheap 10-port switch for any kind of | clustering lab you want to set up. | | Here is an example: | https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3256804328705784.html?spm=a2... | dpedu wrote: | Same cpu, half the ram, quarter the price if you don't mind | going used: https://www.ebay.com/itm/154960426458 | | These are thin clients but flip an option in the bios and | it's a regular pc. | greggyb wrote: | Yes. I just figured I would compare new for new. I love | eBay for electronics shopping. | criddell wrote: | Would one of the boards from Pine work for this application? | | https://pine64.com/product/pine-a64-lts/ | RL_Quine wrote: | No, those are nasty slow. | Asdrubalini wrote: | What is the power consumption tho? It easily adds up over | time. | greggyb wrote: | The linked machine uses a 2W processor. | | The successor product on the company's site uses a 12 volt, | 2 amp power adapter: https://www.bee- | link.net/products/t4-pro | | Here is a YouTube review of the linked model with input | power listed at 12 volt, 1.5 amp (link to timestamp of | bottom of unit): https://youtu.be/56UA2Uto1ns?t=129 | belval wrote: | A low-end x86 CPU will perform better than the RasPis. My | current NAS is an Intel G4560 with 40GB of RAM and 4 HDD | and it barely does over ~40W on average. The article's | cluster does 18W which is better, but even over a year | that's only a 192kWh difference (assuming that is runs all | the time) which would amount to about 40$ at $0.20/kWh. | | It's not really worth comparing further as the | configuration are significantly different, but if your goal | is doing 110MB/s R/W, even when accounting for power | consumption the product in the article is much more | expensive. | SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: | The HP 290 idles around 10W. | | Picked one up off craigslist for ~$50 and use it as a | plex transcoder since it has QuickSync and can | simultaneously transcode around 20 streams of 1080p | content. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | I don't know much about NAS and thought they were just a | bundle of drives with some [media] access related apps on | a longer cable ... 40G RAM? What's that for, is it normal | for a NAS to be so loaded? I was looking at NAS and | people were talking about 1G as being standard (which | conversely seemed really low). | | G4560 suggests you're not processing much, is the NAS | caching a lot? | belval wrote: | 40G is purely overkill and is not utilized. Initial build | had 8G and then I had 32G lying around so I added it. | | 4G is probably enough. Though nextcloud does use a lot of | memory for miniature generation. | | As for the G4560, I can stream 1080p with jellyfin so it | packs a surprising punch for it's power envelope. | formerly_proven wrote: | Even for mainsteam x86 Intel chips idle power consumption | is mostly down to peripherals, power supply (if you build | a small NAS that idles on 2-3 W on the 12 V rail and | can't pull more than 50 W, don't use a 650 W PSU), | cooling fans, and whether someone forgot to enable power | management. | jotm wrote: | I hear it's still possible, through heretic magic, to limit | a CPUs power draw and most importantly, it will not affect | speed on any level (load will increase). | | There's even people selling their souls to the devil for | the ability to control the _actual voltage_ of their chips, | increasing performance per watt drawn! | | But only Gods and top OSS contributors can control the | power draw of chips integrated into drives/extension | cards/etc | Rackedup wrote: | Adafruit had some in stock a few minutes ago: | https://twitter.com/rpilocator ... I think every Wednesday | around 11am ... I almost got one this time, but because they | had me setup 2FA I couldn't checkout on time. | mmastrac wrote: | Is that just on the secondary market(s)? I'm still seeing them | available <$100 in various models, but not always in-stock. | lathiat wrote: | Try https://rpilocator.com/ - no promises though. | snak wrote: | Wow, just checked and Pi 3 is over 100EUR, and Pi 4 over | 200EUR. | | What happened? I remember buying a Pi 3B+ in 2019 for less than | 50EUR. | kordlessagain wrote: | pastel-mature-herring~> Is this where compute is going? | | awesome-zebra*> There is no definitive answer to this question, | as the direction of compute technology is always changing and | evolving. However, the trend in recent years has been towards | smaller, more powerful devices that are able to pack more | processing power into a smaller form factor. The DeskPi Super6c | is an example of this trend, as it offers a trim form factor and | six individual Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4s, each of which | offers a high level of processing power. | mgarfias wrote: | now if only we could get compute modules | rustdeveloper wrote: | This looks really cool! There was a tutorial posted on HN about | building mobile proxy pool with RPI that had obvious limitations: | https://scrapingfish.com/blog/byo-mobile-proxy-for-web-scrap... | It seems this could be a solution to scale capabilities of a | single RPI. | marcodiego wrote: | It is a shame we have nothing as simple as the old OpenMOSIX. | sschueller wrote: | If someone is trying to find a pi you can try the telegram bot I | made for rpilocator.com. It will notify you as soon as there is | stock with filters for specific pis and your location/preferd | vendor. | | The bot is here: https://t.me/rpilocating_bot | | source: https://github.com/sschueller/rpilocatorbot | 3np wrote: | This could be neat for a 3xnomad + 3xvault cluster. Just add | runners and an LB. | marshray wrote: | Quite the bold design choice to put the removable storage on the | underside of the motherboard. | pishpash wrote: | 18W at idle seems like a lot of power. | justsomehnguy wrote: | Divide it for six PIs, six NVMEs, one switch. | pishpash wrote: | Why divide? You don't divide by how many cores are on a | regular PC, to which this has comparable power. | cptnapalm wrote: | Oh my God, I want this. I have no use for it, whatsoever, but oh | my God I want it anyway. | cosmiccatnap wrote: | I love fun projects like this. I would love to know if I could | make one a router since the nic has two ports. | | I have a poweredge now which works fine but it's nowhere close to | 20 watts and I barely use a quarter of it's cpu and memory | antod wrote: | Is it bad that my first thought was "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of | these..." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-17 23:01 UTC)