paul kölle wrote:
Sean Cook schrieb:
GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where
near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage.
Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level
protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does...
This is what I was getting at. I know the basics of working with the
SAN to get a set of machines to at least see a storage array. The next
step is getting them to read and write to say the same file on a
filesystem on that storage array without stepping on each others toes or
corrupting the filesystem that lives on top of that storage array.
That's where I haven't learned too much yet.
I hadn't actually planned on using the SAN to boot off of, but that
might be an option for easier configuration/software management. I
simply wanted to use it almost as if it were an NFS mount that a group
of servers stored web content on. The problem I had with that model is
that the NFS server is a single point of failure. If on the other hand
all the servers are directly attached to the data, any one of them can
go down and the others won't care or notice. At least that's the
working theory behind it right now.
--
[email protected] mailing list
