[zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
11:26am, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer wrote: The point of a clustered filesystem was to be able to spread our data out among all nodes and still have access from any node without having to run NFS. Size of the data set (once you get past the

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
I agree, you need something like AFS, Lustre, or pNFS. And/or an NFS proxy to those. Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Robert Milkowski
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD) I agree, you need something like AFS, Lustre, or pNFS. And/or an NFS proxy to those. Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Paul Archer wrote: 11:26am, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer wrote: The point of a clustered filesystem was to be able to spread our data out among all nodes and still have access from any node without having to run

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
2:20pm, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Paul Archer wrote: Interesting, something more complex than NFS to avoid the complexities of NFS? ;-) We have data coming in on multiple nodes (with local storage) that is needed on other multiple nodes. The only

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Rich Teer
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Archer wrote: Simple. With a distributed FS, all nodes mount from a single DFS. With NFS, each node would have to mount from each other node. With 16 nodes, that's what, 240 mounts? Not to mention your data is in 16 different mounts/directory structures, instead of

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Paul Archer p...@paularcher.org wrote: 2:20pm, Richard Elling wrote: Ignoring lame NFS clients, how is that architecture different than what you would have with any other distributed file system? If all nodes share data to all other nodes, then...? Simple.

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Rich Teer wrote: Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but in this scenario, what would prevent one from having, on a single file server, /exports/nodes/node[0-15], and then having each node NFS-mount /exports/nodes from the server? Much simplier than your example, and

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 25, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Paul Archer wrote: 2:20pm, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Paul Archer wrote: Interesting, something more complex than NFS to avoid the complexities of NFS? ;-) We have data coming in on multiple nodes (with local

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
2:34pm, Rich Teer wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Archer wrote: Simple. With a distributed FS, all nodes mount from a single DFS. With NFS, each node would have to mount from each other node. With 16 nodes, that's what, 240 mounts? Not to mention your data is in 16 different

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: Unified namespace doesn't relieve you of 240 cross-mounts (or equivalents). FWIW, automounters were invented 20+ years ago to handle this in a nearly seamless manner. Today, we have DFS from Microsoft and NFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Nico Williams wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: Unified namespace doesn't relieve you of 240 cross-mounts (or equivalents). FWIW, automounters were invented 20+ years ago to handle this in a nearly seamless

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Nico Williams wrote: I disagree vehemently.  automount is a disaster because you need to synchronize changes with all those clients.  That's not realistic. Really?  I did it with NIS

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Kraus
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Nico Williams wrote: I disagree vehemently.  automount is a disaster because you need to synchronize

Re: [zfs-discuss] cluster vs nfs (was: Re: ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD)

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Paul Kraus pk1...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote: Nothing's changed.  Automounter + data migration - rebooting clients (or close enough to rebooting).  I.e., outage.    Uhhh, not if you design your