Bullshit. just use NFS :)
-Bob
* Steven Harms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-19 17:01]:
> This isn't an OpenBSD specific solution, but you should be able to use an
> EMC san to accomplish this (we use a fiber channel setup)
>
> On 4/19/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007/04/19 18:08, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> > > Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > >>I don't think NFS/AFS is that good an idea; you'll need very beefy
> > > >>fileservers and a fast network.
> > > >
> > > >NFS may actually be useful; if you really need the files in one
> > > >directory space for management/updates that's a way to do it (i.e.
> > > >mount all the various storage servers by NFS on a management
> > > >station/ftp server/whatever).
> > >
> > > Good idea yes, but if I recall properly, unless major changes have been
> > > done, isn't it the use of NFS become a huge bottle neck compare to local
> > > drive? I think the archive is full of complain about the thought put of
> > > NFS not being so good.
> >
> > I meant using it the other way round: have the *webservers* export
> > their filesystem, and ftp/management servers mount them to provide a
> > single space for carrying out updates and backups, locating files,
> > etc.
> >
> > Having a bunch of webservers serve data from a large NFS store seems
> > less attractive for most of the cases I can think of.
> >
> > The main one I see where it may be attractive is where heavy CGI
> > processing or similar is done (that's usually a different situation
> > to having many TB of data, though). In the CGI case, there are some
> > benefits to distributing files by another way (notably avoiding the
> > NFS server as a point of failure), rsync as Joachim mentioned is
> > one way to shift the files around, CVS is also suitable, it
> > encourages keeping tighter control over changes too, and isn't
> > difficult to learn.
>
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 && not 1) != (! 0 && ! 1)) {
print "Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n";
}
