Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Nick Khamis <symack@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user <gentoo-user@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:20:58
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN by "Norman Rieß"
1 >
2 > Hello Nick,
3 >
4 > the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you
5 > need a fibre channel SAN.
6 > Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is
7 > delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance.
8 > An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is
9 > dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS
10 > comes back up without any fuzz.
11 > Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something
12 > like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing
13 > happened.
14 > We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable.
15 > Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to
16 > increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your
17 > share on the go.
18 >
19 > So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel
20 > SAN, don't!
21 >
22 > Regards,
23 > Norman
24 >
25 >
26 Hello Norman,
28 Thank you so much for your response. That is a very interesting! We
29 currently use an NFS to house home directories etc.., and I love how it
30 just bloody works!!! We do however need block level sharing. The idea is
31 the
32 typical host with multiple VM with virtual HDDs residing on a SAN..... We
33 figured
34 fibre would give us better performance (for the mean time!!!).
36 It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI
37 or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type
38 of faults that lead to whatever failures? The only difference being of
39 course, on is on fibre, and the other using ethernet. Given the price
40 of fibre right now, it's quite cheap and we though double the throughput,
41 why not?
43 We could have the VMs taking storage from DAS, and mount to an
44 external NFS for home/ etc... Not sure how it would perform in terms of
45 IO rates, and also, the idea of block level allocation just seems so much
46 cleaner no?
48 PS I am new to SAN, please excuse me.
50 Kind Regards,
52 Nick


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-user] Linux Fiber SAN "Norman Rieß" <norman@×××××××××.org>