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. 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 being in a unified filespace.
To be fair NFSv4 now has a distributed namespace scheme so you could
still have a single mount on the client. That said, some DFSes have
better properties, such as striping of data across sets of servers,
aggressive caching, and various choices of semantics (e.g., Lustre
tries hard to give you POSIX cache coherency semantics).
zfs-discuss mailing list