the question is what difference does it make ? as i mentioned if all your 2 or 3 nodes do is serving NFS it doesn't matter if the protocol nodes or the NSD services are down in both cases it means no access to data which it makes no sense to separate them in this case (unless load dependent). i haven't seen nodes reboot specifically because of protocol issues lately, the fact that everything is in userspace makes things easier too.
sven ------------------------------------------ Sven Oehme Scalable Storage Research email: oeh...@us.ibm.com Phone: +1 (408) 824-8904 IBM Almaden Research Lab ------------------------------------------ From: Zachary Giles <zgi...@gmail.com> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org> Date: 03/06/2016 02:31 AM Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Small cluster Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org Sven, What about the stability of the new protocol nodes vs the old cNFS? If you remember, back in the day, cNFS would sometimes have a problem and reboot the whole server itself. Obviously this was problematic if it's one of the few servers running your cluster. I assume this is different now with the Protocol Servers? On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Marc A Kaplan <makap...@us.ibm.com> wrote: Indeed it seems to just add overhead and expense to split what can be done by one node over two nodes! _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss -- Zach Giles zgiles@gmail.com_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
