OK, you have my attention. But reading around on the website for 5 or 10 minutes and I'm still not sure what this is.
What is it? Why would I use it? What would I use instead of it? (Who are its competitors) When would I not use it?
I see this "The software is a powerful and flexible solution that simplifies the task of managing unstructured file data", but I have no idea what "unstructured file data" means.
Alan McKay wrote:
What is it? Why would I use it? What would I use instead of it? (Who are its competitors) When would I not use it?
and more importantly, what does it have to do with CentOS ?
note they spammed the postgresql mail list with the same announcement. I'm pretty sure I do *not* want to store my postgres databases on such a cluster.
Alan McKay wrote:
OK, you have my attention. But reading around on the website for 5 or 10 minutes and I'm still not sure what this is.
What is it?
A cluster filesystem
Why would I use it?
Because the alternatives are either not up to it or fraught with problems.
What would I use instead of it? (Who are its competitors)
Maybe Lustre or GFS if you have a small (note: SMALL) deployment.
When would I not use it?
When you do not need/want a cluster file system that still gives you an alternative access mechanism (cifs, nfs, whatever) to your data if certain crucial bits go down.
I see this "The software is a powerful and flexible solution that simplifies the task of managing unstructured file data", but I have no idea what "unstructured file data" means.
Me neither but I have me eyes on GlusterFS and I have been waiting for OpenSolaris support as a client or I will be using Centos 5 as a client.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
A cluster filesystem
OK, but you've just given me a circular definition.
When you do not need/want a cluster file system
and again ...
Alan McKay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
A cluster filesystem
OK, but you've just given me a circular definition.
When you do not need/want a cluster file system
and again ...
Okay, a cluster/distributed file system that does not have its own on disk format. It makes use of whatever existing filesystem there is for actual storage and allows you to replicate files/load balance requests to files to 'storage servers' of any supported platform.
At the same time, user level processes on 'clients' access the system as if it was an actual file system.
This enables one to have Linux clients that run say samba to export the files to Windows clients but the actual files are kept on OpenSolaris servers on zfs. Should the Linux clients all go down, the Windows clients could still access the files on the OpenSolaris servers via samba.
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Alan McKay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
A cluster filesystem
OK, but you've just given me a circular definition.
When you do not need/want a cluster file system
and again ...
Okay, a cluster/distributed file system that does not have its own on disk format. It makes use of whatever existing filesystem there is for actual storage and allows you to replicate files/load balance requests to files to 'storage servers' of any supported platform.
At the same time, user level processes on 'clients' access the system as if it was an actual file system.
This enables one to have Linux clients that run say samba to export the files to Windows clients but the actual files are kept on OpenSolaris servers on zfs. Should the Linux clients all go down, the Windows clients could still access the files on the OpenSolaris servers via samba.
I'm having trouble finding any real information about how (and how well) this works and I'd like to know if it would be suitable for a backuppc storage archive which generates millions of hardlinks. Does it deal with hardlinks spanning backend storage servers transparently? And can it replicate efficiently enough to have remote copies?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
Alan McKay wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
A cluster filesystem
OK, but you've just given me a circular definition.
When you do not need/want a cluster file system
and again ...
Okay, a cluster/distributed file system that does not have its own on disk format. It makes use of whatever existing filesystem there is for actual storage and allows you to replicate files/load balance requests to files to 'storage servers' of any supported platform.
At the same time, user level processes on 'clients' access the system as if it was an actual file system.
This enables one to have Linux clients that run say samba to export the files to Windows clients but the actual files are kept on OpenSolaris servers on zfs. Should the Linux clients all go down, the Windows clients could still access the files on the OpenSolaris servers via
samba.
I'm having trouble finding any real information about how (and how well) this works and I'd like to know if it would be suitable for a backuppc storage archive which generates millions of hardlinks. Does it deal with hardlinks spanning backend storage servers transparently? And can it replicate efficiently enough to have remote copies?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Has anyone implemented, or used GlusterFS yet? What is your viewpoint on it?
-
Alan McKay -
Chan Chung Hang Christopher -
Christopher Chan
-
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
Rudi Ahlers