On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Erik Kangas wrote:
From what I have read, GFS should take care of all the locking and synchronization across a large number of attached machines without any problem. Specifically, the file system appears and behaves like a local file system. However, GFS is relatively new and not specifically supported by most SAN vendors.
I've heard many such claims in the past. They've always been proven false. It often is not easy to prove the claims false either; all too often it appears to be right, and only after user data has been corrupted is it recognized that the claims are false.
I also see little or no point to using a network filesystem for IMAP. IMAP, by its nature, is heavily I/O bound. A network filesystem adds more I/O load as well as synchronization problems which do not exist with a direct filesystem.
Many people perceive a network filesystem as a means of obtaining reliability. What is missed is that ultimately, there is a single point of failure for the network filesystem: the server for the network filesystem. There is no particular reason to believe that a filesystem server is more reliable than a dedicated IMAP server.
Timesharing systems, with an unpredictable mix of applications and users, are intrinsically less reliable; and that's where file servers are useful. IMAP server systems are a different animal.
-- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list [email protected] https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
