On 03/05/2012 02:28 PM, Prentice Bisbal wrote:
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.
NFS on Isilon servers IS parallel, and IS fault tolerant. The
connection is a single connection, yes, but underneath it is
distributed, and they offer several methods to help load balance the
clients.
I don't mean to sell Isilon here, but it is very good for what it does.
_______________________________________________
rhelv6-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
