Hi, Thanks for the quick reply. My message was posted sometime ago but stuck in a queue.
I was looking for a cheap alternative along the lines of coraids AOE where I could add storage as needed rather than the seeming never ending cycle of upgrading to larger drives on a hobbyist budget. I picked up 12 old dells as a job lot from a recycle centre (havent used them all) adding budget pci sata cards to avoid an bios limits. I installed large hard drives and put caos 3 linux on the existing 3-10gb IDE drives. Its worked faultlessly with a 100% uptime. A samba server feeds the data out as a windows share. I realise that this type of basically static storage is not pvfs2 primary role but built in redundancy certainly would be the icing on the cake. Its over my head so I could only help with testing and feedback. Steve. -------Original Message------- From: Rob Ross Date: 30/04/2007 16:48:44 To: Steve Cc: Erich Weiler; Robert Latham; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pvfs2-users] Question about redundancy Hi Steve, We get this question a lot. Software redundancy in a parallel file system is a very challenging Problem, particularly to provide efficient access at the same time. The group at Clemson has been looking into this as a research project, And I believe that others have as well. If a group creates a solution That performs well, reliably operates, and fits into the rest of the PVFS system, then we would certainly consider integrating it into the Production releases. This hasn't happened so far... Regards, Rob Steve wrote: > Is built in redundancy planned ? Or not in the scope of the project ? > > Steve > > Trusting my 1.1Tb to the reliability of my drives, and touch wood in 20 > years of computing had never had a drive fail. Now ive just put a curse on > them! > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Latham > Date: 24/04/2007 14:14:13 > To: Erich Weiler > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pvfs2-users] Question about redundancy > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:03:39PM -0700, Erich Weiler wrote: >> I need to be clear on this before putting a lot of time into it, but it >> sounds like this might be a good solution for our firm, as we have a 200 >> node cluster each with one 500GB disk, 400GB of which can be leveraged >> to a massive parallel file system (400GB x 200 nodes = one big ~80TB >> distributed file system). But that assumes that there is no redundancy, >> other wise that 80TB would be more like 50-60TB max or something because >> there would be some redundancy in there... ? > > Murali's explanation is spot-on: no software-based reduncancy scheme. > > For users concerned with redundancy, we suggest hardware failover to > Shared storage, which works quite well. > > ==rob > _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-users
