Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:40:16 +0300 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, mexas@bristol.ac.uk Subject: Re: cluster FS? Message-ID: <D4F2247F-0FFD-4D32-A61B-FDFF39A2E2E5@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <CALfReydSkufU84UftsQoJd9RrkTj0FEzSDOQVcQJ_c7HBg9Jbw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201410010902.s9192Lhb084232@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> <201E3A2E-B33D-4C63-AD81-8FFD5C2E0ED7@mail.turbofuzz.com> <CALfReydSkufU84UftsQoJd9RrkTj0FEzSDOQVcQJ_c7HBg9Jbw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 2:03 PM, krad <kraduk@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > These are my definitions, hopefully it makes some stuff a little = clearer Thanks for the exposition - if that doesn=E2=80=99t help Anton, I = don=E2=80=99t know what will. :-) To answer Anton=E2=80=99s previous question, he just needs to read the = PDF he cited a little more closely. HP has obviously provided some sort = of concurrent access mode to their SAN, but it's only active/active if = you have one of the supported operating systems. Presumably, HP also = provides drivers for those OSes which provide some sort of interlock = support, though again, it=E2=80=99s not clear just what sort of = filesystems you can put on the SAN and still keep the active/active = concurrency. It=E2=80=99s very tricky, and the penalty for getting it = wrong is corrupted data, so I=E2=80=99d tend to put my money on an = actual filesystem-level solution which provides concurrent access, like = glusterfs. That just went BETA with FreeBSD support, so who knows, = maybe it=E2=80=99s becoming a viable solution. I have zero experience = with deploying glusterfs, however, so I cannot speak to that. - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D4F2247F-0FFD-4D32-A61B-FDFF39A2E2E5>