| 1 |
paul kölle wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sean Cook schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where |
| 5 |
>> near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage. |
| 6 |
> Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level |
| 7 |
> protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is what I was getting at. I know the basics of working with the |
| 10 |
SAN to get a set of machines to at least see a storage array. The next |
| 11 |
step is getting them to read and write to say the same file on a |
| 12 |
filesystem on that storage array without stepping on each others toes or |
| 13 |
corrupting the filesystem that lives on top of that storage array. |
| 14 |
That's where I haven't learned too much yet. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I hadn't actually planned on using the SAN to boot off of, but that |
| 17 |
might be an option for easier configuration/software management. I |
| 18 |
simply wanted to use it almost as if it were an NFS mount that a group |
| 19 |
of servers stored web content on. The problem I had with that model is |
| 20 |
that the NFS server is a single point of failure. If on the other hand |
| 21 |
all the servers are directly attached to the data, any one of them can |
| 22 |
go down and the others won't care or notice. At least that's the |
| 23 |
working theory behind it right now. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives