Hi,
I am following this thread and I should say I consider myself a
totally beginner on this kind of subjects. Whit that being said I need to
ask this (probably I am wrong and I hope I am wrong because it gives me the
possibility to learn from your answers): is there a way that OpenAFS fits
in this design? I am thinking on a group of servers with some local
partition schemes like Nick's thread but those servers belong to an OpenAFS
cell/s for linear access from clients and all the replication that OpenAFS
seems to provide?
Regards,
Alvaro
2012/12/26 Johan Beisser <j...@caustic.org>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Nick Holland
> <n...@holland-consulting.net> wrote:
> > On 12/22/12 07:54, Friedrich Locke wrote:
> > ...
> >> But for other services i don't have now what i could use. A example: i
> need
> >> a file system that must expand by adding more machine in the network in
> a
> >> simple way.
> >
> > in plain English: "I'm not thinking out the design carefully, so I'm
> > going to rely on fancy shit to haul my ass out of the fire when the
> > predictable (and not so predictable) happens.
>
> Yes and no. Yes, the design is important. No, I actually do have a
> need for linear storage that can be easily expanded upon. I could use
> a NetApp or similar setup, but then I can't throw more CPU at the
> other side of the problem: using the stored data.
>
> So the bigger problem isn't storage space (disk is cheap, after all),
> rather than being able to slice and dice the data that's stored on the
> system. Processing huge files is much easier when when you have a
> dozen nodes to do it on.
>
> I fully agree that being able to later extract and migrate away from
> any storage solution is important. Along with that comes migration
> paths to new hardware, software, and simple failure recovery (bad
> disks, broken node, etc).
>
> Big data takes quite a bit of planning, but it's gotten much easier.
> Good thing I don't need to do this quickly...
