Have you looked at parallel filesystems such as Lustre and fhgfs? On 18 May 2014 01:14, Steve Thompson <smt at vgersoft.com> wrote: > On Sun, 18 May 2014, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > > > Why specifically do you care about that? Both with your solution and the > > DRBD one the clients only see a NFS endpoint so what does it matter that > > this endpoint is placed on one of the storage systems? > > The whole point of the exercise is to end up with multiple block devices > on a single system so that I can combine them into one VG using LVM, and > then build a single file system that covers the lot. On a budget, of > course. > > > Also while with you solution streaming performance may be ok latency is > > going to be fairly terrible due to the round-trips and synchronicity > > required so this may be a nice setup for e.g. a backup storage system > > but not really suited as a more general purpose solution. > > Yes, I hear what you are saying. However, I have investigated MooseFS and > GlusterFS using the same resources, and my experimental iscsi-based setup > gives a file system that is *much* faster than either in practical use, > latency notwithstanding. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >