tlaro...@polynum.com writes:
>> There's also FreeBSD's HAST:
>> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/disks-hast.html
>This is quite interesting! And I'm happy to see that what I was
>searching for was not totally stupid. It is a kind of "remote" RAID1
>with dissymmetry and fallback so it's approa
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 07:55:03AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:38:17AM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> >
> > I have read the presentation of the features (I have a copy of a book on
> > AFS that I need to read to), so it has features that I'm after but it
> > lacks a
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:26:49AM +0100, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Brett Lymn wrote:
> >>I have in mind a simple block upon which one could imagine building
> >>distributed data.
> >>
> >
> >Have you looked at glusterfs? It sounds like you may be trying to
> >implement somethi
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Brett Lymn wrote:
I have in mind a simple block upon which one could imagine building
distributed data.
Have you looked at glusterfs? It sounds like you may be trying to
implement something like that.
There's also FreeBSD's HAST:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/dis
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:38:17AM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> I have read the presentation of the features (I have a copy of a book on
> AFS that I need to read to), so it has features that I'm after but it
> lacks also one feature: the reality of disks and the need for
> dissymmetry:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:58:58PM +0100, U'll Be King Of The Stars wrote:
>
>
> On 24 June 2019 09:38:17 BST, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> >RAID1 puts an equal burden on both disks
>
> Is it really equal? It doesn't depend on implementation?
>
> >you will spend your time replacing disks pray
On 24 June 2019 09:38:17 BST, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>RAID1 puts an equal burden on both disks
Is it really equal? It doesn't depend on implementation?
>you will spend your time replacing disks praying that they
>not both die at the same moment.
This is one argument for not mirroring SS
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:45:23AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 03:13:21PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> >
> > Is there something like that existing? the idea being to combine
> > as much as possible existing facilities and just to insert a simple
> > client/server enc
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:45:23AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 03:13:21PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> >
> > Is there something like that existing? the idea being to combine
> > as much as possible existing facilities and just to insert a simple
> > client/se
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 03:13:21PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> Is there something like that existing? the idea being to combine
> as much as possible existing facilities and just to insert a simple
> client/server encapsulating "disk" data at the right place (the
> pseudo-device) to ma
I have been designing a system that does something a lot like this, to function
as a multimedia asset management system.
I would love to compare notes with you if you like.
Do you want this to work on the block level? It sounds like you do.
Things like this do exist, but you have to be very spe
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:36:05PM +0100, U'll Be King Of The Stars wrote:
> I have been designing a system that does something a lot like this, to
> function as a multimedia asset management system.
>
> I would love to compare notes with you if you like.
>
> Do you want this to work on
Hello,
I don't know if the idea is stupid, but I wonder if there is a way
to combine existing programs in order to associate in a RAID1 a local
disk and a "remote" disk, i.e. a way to give the RAID1 software a
pseudo-device as the secondary disk, write data being sent also to this
remote disk whil
13 matches
Mail list logo
