0

Our MySQL installation stores several Tb of data that doesn't get accessed too often. Over the next six months we're going to be moving to a Lustre based system for much of our data storage and Im wondering how MySQL would behave if it were storing it's innodb folders there.

I can imagine creating a Lustre client on a VM and NFS mounting the folders on the MySQL server but that seems like an extra layer. Putting the MySQL on the lustre client itself means that the Lustre kernel would have to behave nicely.

Either way - anyone tried this? Reasons why or why not?

ethrbunny
  • 2,369
  • 4
  • 41
  • 75

1 Answers1

1

Operating a mysql server over a NFS mount or distributed filesystem would be a terrible idea.

Databases are all about quickly processing large ammounts of data. In comparison to a mechanical hard disk where the seek time of the read head would be between 4-8ms on a distributed file system this would be more like 100-300ms to search all of the nodes and find all of the blocks that are required to process the query. Performance would dive as a result.

If you want redundancy i suggest you look in to mysql replication. If you need high availability look in to DRBD+PACEMAKER+COROSYNC.

James Park-Watt
  • 358
  • 1
  • 8
  • Most all of the data is via iSCSI at this point. Do you think it would be worse? – ethrbunny Nov 05 '12 at 21:25
  • iSCSI is a lot more attractive than NFS that you mentioned above. For mysql is a disk intensive application i would feel more comfortable that it had it's own read and write heads so that queries get completed as fast as possible. Direct attached disks also let you perform other performance enhancements such as increasing the block size. – James Park-Watt Nov 06 '12 at 14:38