[email protected] wrote:
> 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.\
>
Sounds like GlusterFS with local affinity turned on.
(apologies for not trimming context more)
_______________________________________________
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/
