| 1 |
Both are example of potential shared filesystems... GFS is even pitched as a |
| 2 |
low cost alternative to a SAN or NAS (see redhats docs). |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I would agree that the technologies are vastly different. GFS is a |
| 5 |
clustering Filesystem, where as iSCSI is a block level device similar to FC |
| 6 |
and FCAL. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Regards, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sean |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On 25-Jan-2007, paul k?lle wrote: |
| 14 |
> Sean Cook schrieb: |
| 15 |
> > I would actually spend a little more and start looking at iSCSI for attached |
| 16 |
> > storage. You can generally pickup some decent chassis on ebay for not a lot |
| 17 |
> > of change and it gives you a lot more flexibility. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where |
| 20 |
> > near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage. |
| 21 |
> Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level |
| 22 |
> protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> sorry, noob wrt above |
| 25 |
> Paul |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives