See our general page on upgrading clusters for current list of considerations regarding upgrading Matrix.
Ticket number for procurement-related email conversations
- INC000001120391 (new as of 6/6/14, Friday)
REMINDER: Just put this number in the Subject line, and send message to ChemIT. That's it!
N.B. For the spec'ing and ordering phase, the tracking number was INC000001055288. Now deprecated
Decisions required before purchase
Note: Order must be $5,000 or larger to not pay "overhead". Therefore, buy parts, especially small ones, together. (And a single purchase is better than multiple, $5,000+ purchases.)
Decisions made
Compute nodes
NOTE: Must finalize quantity (and final, final specs) after all other decisions are made and priced.
4/14/14. Czarek: It looks like the slowest cpu E5-2620v2 2.1GHz has the best price performance ratio but anyway I would not buy the slowest cpu. Right now in Gdansk we are buying 10 servers and we decided to go for 10-core cpus E5-2670v2 2.5Ghz (20 cores per node). As in matrix in Gdansk we have only slow interconnect between nodes and some programs can run efficiently only on single node so more cores per node gives for such program advantage. Other programs both in Gdansk and on matrix just need the highest possible total performance and exchange very little data between nodes so than number of cores is not important. What about space restriction ? Is it better to buy smaller number of faster nodes ?
Information ChemIT needs to keep track up, for reference
See sub-pages
Decision 1: Storage of users' data
Where should users' data be located?
- Current answer: Hard drive RAID array in the head node.
- Choices identified by ChemIT, to work through with Czarek:
Choice to provision users' data storage: |
Pro |
Con |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Within the head node |
Sunk cost: Pay once and it lasts at least through warranty period, probably longer (no monthly costs) |
May need to over-provision (pay extra up-front), speculating on future demands. Invest more now to reduce downtime due to future upgrade. |
|
SFS |
Fee based: Get only what you need. |
Fee based: Monthly costs. |
Used pervasively in Chemistry research, with versioning turned on for all instances. |
NAS |
|
Must confirm: Meets Matrix's performance needs? |
|
Dedicated, separate file server |
|
Oliver not willing to have ChemIT set up and run? |
|
Decision 2: Backups
How should Matrix be backed up?
Answer is DEPENDENT on Decision 1.
- Must include capacity to restore OS, applications and configurations, and users' data.
- Current answer: Cornell CIT's EZ-Backup.
- Details: See "Scheraga - Cluster backup choices" for data informing this original decision (created following the Fall 2013 Matrix failure)
- Choices proposed by ChemIT, to work through with Czarek:
- TBA: Backup may be included in options considered for Decision 1.
- If still required, ChemIT still recommends EZ-Backup.
- TBA: Backup may be included in options considered for Decision 1.
Decision 3: Head node specifications
The head node specifications is DEPENDENT on Decision 1 (and maybe Decision 2).
- Size decision
- 1U is cheapest, and fine if don't need to hold lots of drives.
- 2U is more expensive, but can hold more drives.
Considerations for upgrade (info-gathering phase)
- (with Matrix-specific notes)
Implementation decisions (for after purchase decisions!)
Storage-related
For each question:
- Current answer:
- Proposed by ChemIT:
- Proposed by Czarek: