Hey,
I'm looking at implimenting a 4 server system at work, with each
server having 2x200 gig hard drives with 3 raided partitions and LVM on
the third. I would like to use some form of AFS, however i'm unsure of
it's suitability. I would ideally like to somehow network RAID the
available
I have my entire cell, 1.3 Tbyets, spread across 8 file servers, all
with external disk in a RAID 5 configuration. Works just fine. I have
not tried LVM on this system, but I plan to later this winter.
Paul Robins wrote:
Hey,
I'm looking at implimenting a 4 server system at work, with
AFS does not provide a method for failover, in the strictest meaning of
the word. A replicated volume residing on a different file server than
the original volume, would be the closest to what I think you mean.
Although replicating every volume in a cell is not recommended. So I
doubt that
Andrew,
Thanks for the quick response, how do you have the RAID set up? We'd
initially like to start small (say 2 servers) and be able to expand up
to the 500 gig level eventually.
Regards,
Paul
Andrew Bacchi wrote:
I have my entire cell, 1.3 Tbyets, spread across 8 file servers, all
with
On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Paul Robins wrote:
Hey,
I'm looking at implimenting a 4 server system at work, with each
server having 2x200 gig hard drives with 3 raided partitions and
LVM on the third. I would like to use some form of AFS, however i'm
unsure of it's suitability. I would
On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Paul Robins wrote:
I just assume you're planning to do this on Linux.
Yes apologies, linux, probably reasonably modern 2.6 kernel
Since there is no other fileserver than a 'namei' on Linux, you
can use it on any device (the LVM is usually completely
I'll reply in one if that's ok (sorry for the topposting)
I would expect a disk to be the thing to go to be honest but regardless,
i want some system where there is parity data stored on other nodes in
this group of machines. Basically RAID5 but networked would be perfect,
as that would give
Paul Robins wrote:
I would expect a disk to be the thing to go to be honest but
regardless, i want some system where there is parity data stored on
other nodes in this group of machines. Basically RAID5 but networked
would be perfect, as that would give me ~ 400 gig of space whilst
being
On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Paul Robins wrote:
I'll reply in one if that's ok (sorry for the topposting)
No problem ... :-)
I would expect a disk to be the thing to go to be honest but
regardless, i want some system where there is parity data stored on
other nodes in this group of
I think you have to abandon the network RAID idea. You may be
referring to SAN storage, in which case RAID is unnecessary. You could
use RAID 1 for mirroring your data disk, or RAID 5 to combine multiple
disks into one file space, with a hot spare - very reliable and
redundant.. But that is
You're not talking nonsense at all. It's exactly the kind of statement
I was provoking.
(Just the term 'node' is from cluster terminology not AFS, but OK.
AFS doesn't care about nodes, there are only volumes on fileservers) :-)
Sorry yes, i originally approached this from a clustering
On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Paul Robins wrote:
You're not talking nonsense at all. It's exactly the kind of
statement I was provoking.
(Just the term 'node' is from cluster terminology not AFS, but OK.
AFS doesn't care about nodes, there are only volumes on
fileservers) :-)
Sorry yes, i
I'm still not sure, I could clarify ...
If you have just one fileserver, AFS IMHO doesn't really make sense.
Make an NFS server of this single fileserver or a samba server if you
have windows boxes to talk to.
There is no 'distribution' with one fileserver, right?
Well that's what i was
Well that's what i was originally wondering, can AFS provide the ability
to replicate the contents of one fileserver to others which can be used
redundantly. It appears not at all; I'd still like to use AFS but I do
think i'm going to have to go NFS and then some sort of faux raid 1 for
On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:54 PM, John Hascall wrote:
Well that's what i was originally wondering, can AFS provide the
ability
to replicate the contents of one fileserver to others which can be
used
redundantly. It appears not at all; I'd still like to use AFS but
I do
think i'm going to have to
Ok, then, what i am looking for is a distributed filesystem (free of
charge and license (GNU or so)) replication over all nodes since i am
preparing a virtual mail server using keepalived and maildir system. The
thing is users use imap and imaps in a load balanced environnement so
every node
aklog came from athena, where cells were all in the ATHENA.MIT.EDU realm.
It's using the krb5 realm of host function on,probably, the server.
Actually ... I believe the code that does the mapping from the cell to
the realm was introduced in the first round of k5-ification of aklog,
but I'm not
Jeffrey,
I appreciate your lengthy reply, you've confirmed many of the things
I was wondering about. The big issue when it comes to the server
situation is that a disk dying will infact kill the entire server as
these are low budget whiteboxes with basic SATA controllers, nothing
Paul Robins wrote:
Jeffrey,
I appreciate your lengthy reply, you've confirmed many of the things I
was wondering about. The big issue when it comes to the server
situation is that a disk dying will infact kill the entire server as
these are low budget whiteboxes with basic SATA
Jeffrey,
Don't get me wrong, this was not my choice, I have absolutely no IT
budget and it's likely to remain that way although I would like to get a
well supported SATA controller. The benefits of small business computing :)
Derek, if you're reading this, i've tried yanking a drive before
Paul Robins wrote:
Derek, if you're reading this, i've tried yanking a drive before and the
system doesn't crash, but any disk access hangs. I wish i could spec a
higher quality controller but i have a feeling it will be rejected
outright.
Yanking a drive is very different than a hard disk
Quoting Paul Robins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Derek, if you're reading this, i've tried yanking a drive before and
the system doesn't crash, but any disk access hangs. I wish i could
spec a higher quality controller but i have a feeling it will be
rejected outright.
This test was done on a system
--On Wednesday, December 28, 2005 03:39:34 PM + Paul Robins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If either of you could weigh in on AFS on top of DRBD i'd appreciate it,
I'm not fully up on whether a second server with an identical filesystem
could be made to take over a crashed AFS machine.
There
perform kerberos server discovery (RFC2052) on server.bar.com
- usually something.bar.com (depends on DNS entries)
Be careful ... aklog doesn't know anything about RFC2052; it just calls
a Kerberos library function. What that does depends on your Kerberos
implementation.
--Ken
Pierre Ancelot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, then, what i am looking for is a distributed filesystem (free of
charge and license (GNU or so)) replication over all nodes since i am
preparing a virtual mail server using keepalived and maildir system. The
thing is users use imap and imaps in a
I have installed Fedora core 4 on a G4. Next to get openafs running on
that machine. It appears to me that I would need a version for ppc to
work. Am I confused? Does it matter that I am on a G4 as far as AFS
software is concerned when I am running in core 4?
Thanks for any help I can get
Quoting Peter Metcalf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have installed Fedora core 4 on a G4. Next to get openafs running
on that machine. It appears to me that I would need a version for
ppc to work. Am I confused? Does it matter that I am on a G4 as
far as AFS software is concerned when I am running
Well, thanks for the link to drdb, it's certainly what i'll use, this or
lustre. About the shared raid drive, if the server that runs it dies, i'
out anyways, so this is not failover.
Thanks.
Pierre.
PS: Can you please stop to send to me cc to the mailing list ? it's
really annoying. Thanks.
Modifying all those krb5.conf's is not an option (clueless users can't
be expected to do this), so I have no other choice. Fortunately many
libkrb5's _do_ know about RFC2052.
BTW, I think understanding and valuing this sort of scenario -- where
the AFS admin does not control the client machines
Adam Megacz wrote:
Modifying all those krb5.conf's is not an option (clueless users can't
be expected to do this), so I have no other choice. Fortunately many
libkrb5's _do_ know about RFC2052.
But they will only use DNS SRV records if the krb5.conf file permits
it and there is no
Having been tossing ideas like this for a while myself:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Chaskiel M Grundman wrote:
--On Wednesday, December 28, 2005 03:39:34 PM + Paul Robins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If either of you could weigh in on AFS on top of DRBD i'd appreciate it,
I'm not fully up on
BTW, I think understanding and valuing this sort of scenario -- where
the AFS admin does not control the client machines and users are
unsophisticated -- is an important hurdle that the OpenAFS community
still needs to get over. Afsdb/dynroot were a big step in this
direction, though!
Sigh,
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Derek Atkins wrote:
You don't want AFS for an imap or maildir backend. You should just
Since it's void of any locks, what would be wrong with maildir in AFS?
use a RAID system, or perhaps DRBD (www.drbd.org) if you really want
network redundancy. But if it were me I'd
I believe this scenario will not work because the VLDB entries for all
of the volumes that are being mounted by Server B are listed as being
on Server A. Since Server A is unreachable, the volume server when
performing the vos syncvldb and vos syncserv steps will not be able
to verify that
Jeffrey Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Modifying all those krb5.conf's is not an option (clueless users can't
be expected to do this), so I have no other choice. Fortunately many
libkrb5's _do_ know about RFC2052.
But they will only use DNS SRV records if the krb5.conf file permits
it
Ken Hornstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--Ken (who wrote the initial support for RFC 2052 for MIT Kerberos).
Thank you, Ken. You, the person who came up with AFSDB, and the
person who implemented dynroot are my heroes. You've made a lot of
things possible for a lot of people.
Now all we need
Stephan Wiesand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Derek Atkins wrote:
You don't want AFS for an imap or maildir backend. You should just
Since it's void of any locks, what would be wrong with maildir in AFS?
AFS is optimized for read (or pessimized for write, depending on which
Adam Megacz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now all we need is a widely-accepted, widely-adopted way to authenticate
users who are not in the kerberos database of the local cell, and do so
without administrator intervention (ie without adding a ridiculous N^2
cross-realm entries). Ideally this
You just accept any username, create a KDC entry for them, and give
them an empty password. Tada, authenticated.
Only the KDC admin can do this. Furthermore, users would need to
remember a different username (and password, if they have any sense)
for every cell.
the user now has this
My $0.02 on this subject:
While zeroconf is an admirable goal (one I've pushed for a long time),
zeroauth (for lack of a better term) is a completely different matter.
Authentication is tied up a whole bunch of site-specific policies, and
every site I've ever encountered has a vastly different
40 matches
Mail list logo
