On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:45:54 -0700 (PDT) > a a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Please don't multipost. > > > We are searching around a solution like a "high available transparent > > file system" that makes the fault transparent to the application, so > > in case of fault, redundant machine still can access the files even > > the master machine is down (replica issue or such a thing). > > It seems OpenASF doesn't have fail-over feature, am I right? My > > question is that can OpenASF help us in our case? > > What is typically said is that, out of the box, OpenAFS has redundany > for read-only data. What this means is that you can write data to one > location (the "read-write volume"), and later on you decide when to > distribute that data to multiple read-only sites ("releasing the > volume"). After that, clients can read the data from the read-only > sites, and will failover automatically if any of those sites fail. > > Releasing the volume data is normally done as an administrative action. > It is automatable, and certainly some sites do automated releases a lot, > but it's probably not useful to do it very frequently (e.g. every 5 > seconds). So OpenAFS doesn't really have a way to replicate data as it > is written, right now. However, read-write replication is a known > desired feature already, and some work has been done in that area, so it > may exist in the future. > > However, it is still possible today to achieve some kind of read-write > replication with OpenAFS volumes by just using some other kind of > underlying storage. If you create your AFS volumes on a SAN, or > DRBD-backed storage, you can achieve redundancy for read-write data if > you bring up a fileserver on another machine when an outage occurs. > Many sites have AFS data on a SAN that they can quickly serve from > different fileservers, and I know of at least one site that has > DRBD-backed fileservers that I believe have worked well. > > > Also, since you seem to be asking this same question of several projects > (the exact same question, in fact :), you may want to look at the Coda > filesystem. Coda is very AFS-like, and offers built-in read-write > replication. I believe it is not as mature/stable as OpenAFS, but you > can judge for yourself if it fits your needs. > > When I was at CMU this past summer, working with the people who develop Coda, I would recommend against using it in production where you actually care about your data. The professor who was developing (and still uses) Coda still occassionally has data loss issues, and this has been some 10+ years after they stopped developing Coda as a research project. This professor has an employee that works on some Coda developement, but does not support it (beyond when there is data loss within the research group). > -- > Andrew Deason > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > -- Jacob Thebault-Spieker Cell: (320) 288-6412 http://summatusmentis.com
