Re: Options for redundant storage cluster?
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:40:19 -0600 (CST), Robert Bonomi For the illiterati, like myself, _what_ does committed to head mean? head is a synonym for -CURRENT. You can read more about this topic in our great handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html What it basically means, is that the code hit the source tree of the development branch, which allows it to be publicly available for other developers and early adopters. After the code in head is considered stable, it gets merged to the -stable branches (8.x, 7.x) and will be part of the next release which will be cut from the given branch (like 8.2 or 7.4). -- Kind regards Daniel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Options for redundant storage cluster?
Hi, hopefully I'm not too far out posting this question here. It takes in a lot of areas so I was unsure where to post it. If it belongs on another ML please advise and I will re-post it there. I am researching options for a two node failover storage cluster. This is primarily to provide shared storage (either iSCSI or NFS) for XenServer VMs. I am looking to get the best bang for the buck and wondering if FreeBSD might be a good choice? Hardware-wise we have available two identical supermicro chassis each with 16 x SAS bays and a choice of AMD or latest Xeon 5500 CPUs, together with as many gigabit cards as we need but the budget won't stretch to faster networking. It would be nice to take advantage of ZFS and use two or three 8-port SAS HBAs in each server rather than expensive hardware RAID cards. We don't need to store more than around 2TB but we would like to comfortably service around a 75 - 100 VM instances (the VMs on average, are not too I/O heavy). Thin provisioning and snapshots would be nice, too. My initial thoughts were that we might be able to use ZFS, cheap LSI 8 port SAS HBAs together with a dozen or so SATA II drives and a couple of Intel X25E SSDs to help things along. It would be great if these boxen could network boot, so we can use all the drive bays for storage. I have no idea what options exist for clustering NFS/redundancy. I would be very grateful for any advice - especially from anyone who has experience in the same scenario. Thanks in advance, Matt. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Options for redundant storage cluster?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Matthew Law m...@webcontracts.co.ukwrote: Hi, hopefully I'm not too far out posting this question here. It takes in a lot of areas so I was unsure where to post it. If it belongs on another ML please advise and I will re-post it there. I am researching options for a two node failover storage cluster. This is primarily to provide shared storage (either iSCSI or NFS) for XenServer VMs. I am looking to get the best bang for the buck and wondering if FreeBSD might be a good choice? Hardware-wise we have available two identical supermicro chassis each with 16 x SAS bays and a choice of AMD or latest Xeon 5500 CPUs, together with as many gigabit cards as we need but the budget won't stretch to faster networking. It would be nice to take advantage of ZFS and use two or three 8-port SAS HBAs in each server rather than expensive hardware RAID cards. We don't need to store more than around 2TB but we would like to comfortably service around a 75 - 100 VM instances (the VMs on average, are not too I/O heavy). Thin provisioning and snapshots would be nice, too. My initial thoughts were that we might be able to use ZFS, cheap LSI 8 port SAS HBAs together with a dozen or so SATA II drives and a couple of Intel X25E SSDs to help things along. It would be great if these boxen could network boot, so we can use all the drive bays for storage. I have no idea what options exist for clustering NFS/redundancy. I would be very grateful for any advice - especially from anyone who has experience in the same scenario. Thanks in advance, Matt. I'd say right now ggated/ggatec + heartbeat is sort of roughly equivalent of DRBD and heartbeat. I think many of us are waiting for HAST though. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/2009-October/001279.html -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Options for redundant storage cluster?
On 19.2.2010 2:30, Adam Vande More wrote: I'd say right now ggated/ggatec + heartbeat is sort of roughly equivalent of DRBD and heartbeat. I think many of us are waiting for HAST though. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/2009-October/001279.html FYI, HAST was committed to head today. -- S pozdravom / Best regards Daniel Gerzo, FreeBSD committer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
