On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> It sounds like you're looking at a clustered file system. Where on the >> Fast/Cheap/Reliable triangle do you want to land? > > Well, of course, all three. ;-) > Fast and cheap are requirements. For reliability, it is acceptable to > use simple disk mirroring on a single host. It needs to be protected > against a single disk failure, but does not need to be protected against > a machine failure or scsi/sata bus failure. > > At present, each machine's /scratch disk is either a mirror or a raid5, > depending on which machine in question.
actually, what you want is a bit more nuanced than that. you want new files that are created to be created on the local disk so that they have the same performance as they have today. but you are willing to loose substantial performance in accessing a file that was created by another machine that lives on it's local disk. you just want the different filesystems to be transparently glued togeather. >> Keep in mind: you >> should accept that if you want to have all systems see the same unified >> file system and not have a shared storage media (fibre, iSCSI, etc), >> then you will have your reads and writes go across the network. > > The goal I'm trying to accomplish - it's expected that some amount of > network traffic is required, but it should be minimal. If a 1G file is > created on some machine, then a few packets should fly across the > network, just to say the file exists. But 1G should not go anywhere. right. David Lang _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
