From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 2 09:48:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1631065670 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:48:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from escholtz@argonsoft.de) Received: from coyote.quickmin.net (coyote.quickmin.net [217.14.112.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12A58FC15 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50935 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2010 10:48:26 +0100 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 50932, pid: 50933, t: 0.0172s scanners: clamav: 0.95.2/m:49/d:8609 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=argonsoft.de; b=ckkr+hyTXygBS47yGwUbbRiDnJEX5u6ltpl4DnliAkCX4CrN+BJXtp3I+z0Yqil0pmxVUCL3RPt+lf6OYsTBaij0ZsXvcLoRsRL7ukvXwkHteGb7I0BuyS8kcBVN2wM+edzK8LLCllPzuZ3KNyq8k1jw8XosGU9qKvG7Qkl0g6I= ; Received: from dialbs-213-023-239-142.static.arcor-ip.net (HELO erik-scholtzs-macbook-pro-15.local) (00000150@213.23.239.142) by coyote.quickmin.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2010 10:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4B8CDEE9.9020004@argonsoft.de> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:48:25 +0100 From: "Erik Scholtz, ArgonSoft GmbH" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Poland References: <4B8A4EFF.9050207@argonsoft.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cluster Filesystem on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Clustering FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:48:28 -0000 Doug, have you ever tried to put a NFS-volume into the working-path of an apache-server? I did, and I could messure a significant performance-loss of the webserver by 1sec per page-load. The NFS was mounted on a 1GBit dedicated connection between the webserver and the nfs-server; I tried several TCP-options and MTU-Settings without any important change on the performance-loss. Compared to a dedicated mounted ISCSI-Volume this 1sec loss is a lot! I think NFS is great for changing big amounts of data. But for short read/write-access NFS does not seem to be the first choice. Greetings, Erik -- My blog: http://blog.elitecoderz.net Doug Poland wrote: > On Mon, March 1, 2010 12:11, Leinier Cruz Salfran wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Erik Scholtz, ArgonSoft GmbH >> wrote: >> >>> I did some research the last two weeks on how to build a cluster >>> filesystem on FreeBSD. >>> >>> My solution at the moment is, to rsync all filesystems once a >>> minute, which is rather to rare. So I tried to get a hook with >>> KQueue to rsync the filesystems on data-change. Unfortunatly I could >>> not find a working solution (had a try with IO::KQueue using perl). >>> >> i use rsync to make partial data backup .. ie: /etc, /usr/local/etc, >> /usr/home, /var/logs ... >> >>> How do you guys solve this problem (of a shared filesystem with >>> rw-option)? >>> Any hints are welcome, since I'm getting very frustrated at the >>> moment. >>> >> there is a project named 'hast'[1] for a clustered filesystem .. it's >> being developed by pawel .. the project has some completed milestones, >> so you can get it from fbsd src svn tree .. hast can do clustered >> filesystem right now but it's not complete, so there is no stable yet >> >> other way is gmirror[2] + ggated .. with that you can get a raid1 over >> net solution .. but i think it's not prepared to be used as >> master-master soluction >> > Neither hast nor gmirror+ggatd are cluster filesystems, in that only > one "side" of the storage is available for writes at a point in time. > Filesystems like OCFS2 and GFS allow multiple, simultaneous read-write > access to block devices. > > Given there is not true cluster filesystem available for FreeBSD at > this time, I wonder aloud why so many people are so quick to dismiss > NFS? NFS provides "most" of features of a cluster filesystem today. > If one were to choose NFS for shared storage, one could use tools > available today to make NFS highly available (hast, gmirror+ggated). > > >