>> I get a little nervous at the thought of hooking all that up to a single
>> server, and am a little vague on how much RAM would be advisable, other than
>> "as much as will fit" (:-). Then again, I've been waiting for something
>> pNFS/NFSv4.1 to be usable for gluing together multiple NFS servers into a
>> single global namespace, without any sign of that happening anytime soon.
> NFS v4 or DFS (or even clever sysadmin + automount) offers single namespace
> without needing the complexity of NFSv4.1, lustre, glusterfs, etc.
Been using NFSv4 since it showed up in Solaris-10 FCS, and it is true
that I've been clever enough (without automount -- I like my computers
to be as deterministic as possible, thank you very much :-) for our
NFS clients to see a single directory-tree namespace which abstracts
away the actual server/location of a particular piece of data.
However, we find it starts getting hard to manage when a single project
(think "directory node") needs more space than their current NFS server
will hold. Or perhaps what you're getting at above is even more clever
than I have been to date, and is eluding me at the moment. I did see
someone mention "NFSv4 referrals" recently, maybe that would help.
Plus, believe it or not, some of our customers still insist on having the
server name in their path hierarchy for some reason, like /home/mynfs1/,
/home/mynfs2/, and so on. Perhaps I've just not been persuasive enough
> Don't forget about backups :-)
I was hoping I could get by with telling them to buy two of everything.
Thanks and regards,
zfs-discuss mailing list