To some people "active-active" means all cluster members serve the
same filesystems.
To others "active-active" means all cluster members serve some
filesystems and can serve all filesystems ultimately by taking over
failed cluster members.
Nico
--
___
z
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:09:45AM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:52:49AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
> > Recently I stumbled upon a Nexenta+Supermicro report [1] about
> > cluster-in-a-box with shared storage boasting an "active-active
> > cluster" with "transparent fail
-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:53 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea
Hello all,
A couple of months ago I wrote up some ideas about clustered
ZFS with shared storage
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:52:49AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Recently I stumbled upon a Nexenta+Supermicro report [1] about
> cluster-in-a-box with shared storage boasting an "active-active
> cluster" with "transparent failover". Now, I am not certain how
> these two phrases fit in the same sent
Hello all,
A couple of months ago I wrote up some ideas about clustered
ZFS with shared storage, but the idea was generally disregarded
as not something to be done in near-term due to technological
difficultes.
Recently I stumbled upon a Nexenta+Supermicro report [1] about
cluster-in-a-box w
On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
> On 15/10/11 2:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
In my example
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Toby Thain
>
> Hmm, of course the *latency* of Ethernet has always been much less, but
> I did not see it reaching the *throughput* of a single direct attached
> disk until gigabit.
Nobody run
2011-10-16 4:14, Tim Cook wrote:
Quite frankly your choice in blade chassis was a horrible design
decision. From your description of its limitations it should never be
the building block for a vmware cluster in the first place. I would
start by rethinking that decision instead of trying to po
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Thanks to all that replied. I hope we may continue the discussion,
> but I'm afraid the overall verdict so far is disapproval of the idea.
> It is my understanding that those active in discussion considered
> it either too limited (in applicati
Thanks to all that replied. I hope we may continue the discussion,
but I'm afraid the overall verdict so far is disapproval of the idea.
It is my understanding that those active in discussion considered
it either too limited (in application - for VMs, or for hardware cfg),
or too difficult to impl
On 15/10/11 2:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
In my example - probably not a completely clustered FS.
A clustered ZFS pool with datas
On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
>>
>> In my example - probably not a completely clustered FS.
>> A clustered ZFS pool with datasets individually owned by
>> sp
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
>
> In my example - probably not a completely clustered FS.
> A clustered ZFS pool with datasets individually owned by
> specific nodes at any given time would suffice for such
> VM fa
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> The idea is you would dedicate one of the servers in the chassis to be a
> Solaris system, which then presents NFS out to the rest of the hosts.
Actually, I looked into a conf
Also, it's not worth doing a clustered ZFS thing that is too
application-specific. You really want to nail down your choices of
semantics, explore what design options those yield (or approach from
the other direction, or both), and so on.
Nico
--
___
zf
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Thanks to Nico for concerns about POSIX locking. However,
> hopefully, in the usecase I described - serving images of
> VMs in a manner where storage, access and migration are
> efficient - whole datasets (be it volumes or FS datasets)
> can be
2011-10-14 19:33, Tim Cook пишет:
With clustered VMFS on shared storage, VMWare can
migrate VMs faster - it knows not to copy the HDD image
file in vain - it will be equally available to the "new host"
at the correct point in migration, just as it
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> 2011-10-14 15:53, Edward Ned Harvey пишет:
>
> From:
> zfs-discuss-bounces@**opensolaris.org[mailto:
>>> zfs-discuss-
>>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>>>
>>> I guess Richard was correct about the usecase description -
>>>
2011-10-14 15:53, Edward Ned Harvey пишет:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I guess Richard was correct about the usecase description -
I should detail what I'm thinking about, to give some illustration.
After readin
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> I guess Richard was correct about the usecase description -
> I should detail what I'm thinking about, to give some illustration.
After reading all this, I'm still unclear on wh
Hello all,
Definitely not impossible, but please work on the business case.
Remember, it is easier to build hardware than software, so your
software solution must be sufficiently advanced to not be obsoleted
by the next few hardware generations.
-- richard
I guess Richard was correct about t
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> So, one version of the solution would be to have a single host
> which imports the pool in read-write mode (i.e. the first one
> which boots), and other hosts would write thru it (like iSCSI
> or whatever; maybe using SAS or FC to connect betwee
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>> ZFS developers have for a long time stated that ZFS is not intended,
>> at least not in near term, for clustered environments (that is, having
>> a pool safely imported by several nodes simu
On Oct 9, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> ZFS developers have for a long time stated that ZFS is not intended,
> at least not in near term, for clustered environments (that is, having
> a pool safely imported by several nodes simultaneously). However,
> many people on forums
Hello all,
ZFS developers have for a long time stated that ZFS is not intended,
at least not in near term, for clustered environments (that is, having
a pool safely imported by several nodes simultaneously). However,
many people on forums have wished having ZFS features in clusters.
I have some
25 matches
Mail list logo
