On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:50:13PM +, Julian Smith wrote:
on filesystem redundancy
I'm not sure I fully understand exactly what AFS offers in this area,
but it comes with a lot of extra stuff that I don't need, and also seems
very complicated.
I think I'll persevere with dupfs/LD_PRELOAD
I've been wondering about how to cope with random hardware failures when
data is being received from a WAN and written to local storage. As I
understand it, CARP(4) will enable any one of N machines to handle
incoming requests, so hardware failure of up to N-1 machines will be
handled.
But if
AFS would handle your storage in a redundant and distributed way where
you easily can add and remove a machine.
But this is not a thing you set up in an afternoon :-)
People seems to be afraid of it since it's complexity.
But when the work is done you wonder why people pay huge amounts for NAS
There are SCSI enclosures with the ability to connect to two different
SCSI buses, so they can be accessed from two different machines.
I _think_ the SCSI architecture could allow more than one host
adapter on a bus. _But_ I never heard someone did this. I presume it
would also depend on the host
On 2005-11-16 11:08:51 +, Julian Smith wrote:
One way of handling this would be to write a filesystem that copies the
contents of modified files over a network before close() returns. That
way, as long as a SMTP server (say) checks the return from close()
before telling the sender that it
This is actually pretty common believe it or not. This does not
provide filesystem redundancy though. What this provides is a
mechanism to have multiple servers to touch the same disks. There
clearly is some danger here since you can't have multiple machines
touching the same filesystem
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Marco Peereboom
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:41 AM
To: knitti
Cc: Julian Smith; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem redundancy
This is actually pretty common believe
On Wednesday, November 16, Will H. Backman wrote:
Maybe OpenBSD can merge with OpenVMS, which should be easy given that
four of the letters are already the same. OpenVMS has some amazing
clustering capabilities.
It's actually 5 letters... and if *you* can't even get that
much right, how the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Per-Erik Persson wrote:
AFS would handle your storage in a redundant and distributed way where
you easily can add and remove a machine.
But this is not a thing you set up in an afternoon :-)
People seems to be afraid of it since it's complexity.
But
9 matches
Mail list logo
