On 03/05/2012 04:11 PM, Phil Meyer wrote: > On 03/05/2012 09:34 AM, Bohmer, Andre ten wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Any advise or experience from production systems regarding distributed >> parallel fault-tolerant file systems like Lustre ? >> We would like to offer high performance, redundant storage via nfs >> and cifs >> from Redhat servers. >> >> At this we've HP's XP9000 Ibrix in use, but performance is not all that >> great. >> > > My test results are nearly 2 years old by now, but at that time we > concluded that, for NFS, the very best performing and low > administration solution was Isilon. > > Need more space? Drop in a storage module and its online in~60 > seconds. Performance starting to lag a bit under load? Drop in a CPU > module and its online in ~60 seconds. > > More expensive than any home grown, for sure, but well worth it in my > opinion. > > Two years now in a very heavily used environment without an issue.
NFS is not a parallel filesystem, and it's not fault-tolerant, which were the OP's requirements. NFS is fine for most day-to-day use (that's why it's so ubiquitous), but when you have 100+ nodes accessing the server at once, you can see it's weaknesses, which is why filesystems like Lustre and PVFS started appeariing soon after Linux clusters came onto the scene. -- Prentice _______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
