>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:42:25 +0100, >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Grandi) said:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:13:56 -0600, Andreas Dilger >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: pg> [ ... 'fsck' times ... ] My main reason to look at Lustre is pg> not to take advantage of the cluster based parallelism, but pg> to have 6x2TB OSTs on the same machine and hope that if pg> there are active updates to only one then only one needs pg> 'fsck'ing. Basically my main reason is to reduce post-crash pg> service unavailability due to 'fsck'. Just noticed a recent thread in 'comp.arch.storage' that demonstrates the same worry, only on a much, much bugger scale: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.storage/browse_thread/thread/d6f10ec24c07ed53/ecd3a745fbf561e6 «The system's storage is based on code which writes many files to the file system, with overall storage needs currently around 40TB and expected to reach hundreds of TBs. The average file size of the system is ~100K, which translates to ~500 million files today, and billions of files in the future.» «We're looking for an alternative solution, in an attempt to improve performance and ability to recover from disasters (fsck on 2^42 files isn't practical, and I'm getting pretty worried due to this fact - even the smallest filesystem inconsistency will leave me lots of useless bits).» Ehehehe, «pretty worried» :-). From numbers that I have seen a Lustre cluster might support that kind of requirements, even if the recovery time might be some days. I hope. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
