I am looking at PVFS to replace a system of 45 machines holding about 100tb of data, were we currently use nfs and a bunch of symlinks to keep track of everything. When I was given this thing to administer, I was able to parallelize parts of it, but having everything under one filesystem would be really really nice.
This system is basically the music equivalent of a render farm -- we get about 60-100 cds a day, we encode them in a lossless compressed format, then have a set of windows machines that run the various encodings (mp3, aac, wma, etc... some of which are unavailable on Linux). And then the files get delivered to a bunch of downstream partner companies (probably 70 or so). We keep a copy of all the encodings we do (23 different encodings at this time, more soon). So ideally we need a fast parallel system that can also serve as an archive (because when new partner companies come in, we give them the whole catalog). If we had a catastrophic loss of all the data, I would probably lose my job, but occasional partial losses are recoverable (we keep a store copy of every CD, and we have recovered from losing 10,000 albums in a fairly short amount of time) So do you think PVFS is suitable? I saw a post on this list that it is best suited for use as a fast scratchpad. I really like PVFS over Lustre just from looking at it -- a kernel module is vastly more palatable than patching the kernel, plus the whole thing is totally free and open, unlike Lustre. What do you think? -- David Case Digital Distribution Wrangler [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
