Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of chrism@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:07 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: Vsftpd & Iscsi - fast enough
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Well there goes the neighborhood... Now I have to talk memory in
MiB and GiB and comm and storage in MB and GB.
Anyways datacom and storage has always been base 10, why, well I'll
leave that to the conspiracy theorists.
Perhaps it would be possible to leave the semantics games
alone and just
answer the guy's question? I don't have any personal experience with
iSCSI or I would try to do that.
The question was answered earlier and what does your comment contribute?
Jeez, there is nothing like a me-too troll to suck the fun out of a
thread.
-Ross
well, he (Chris) does have a point. I was excited to see my question
get so many responses. But I only got one enterprise-relevant answer,
from Matt Shields (thanks matt!). We definitely got side-tracked here,
har. Let us chase down this iSCSI vs rsync pros/cons question a little
more...
I have sort of ruled out doing iSCSI over GFS because of all the moving
parts and some inherent dangers similar to what mentions about stopping
data flows on such designs. Am I that much better off to ditch even the
iSCSI component and just stick with the current setup that relies on rsync?
I'd like to ditch rsync, and latency isn't that *big*of an issue because
those boxes don't push more than 10-20 megs of data normally. So is
there a case where I could extend onto iSCSI and see some benefits vs.
staying with the FTP server pair & rsync? I sort of asked some of this
in another thread, but curious about what folks have to say.
-essentially the question is 'what's after rsync, when you don't have
fibre channel budget, and don't want to stoop so low as iATA called
Ethernet-over-IP'?
here's the GFS over iSCSI strategy....
essentially, you're going to abstract the one filesystem, pretending
it's "out" of any of the hosts (it can still be physically in the one
host), and create a GFS volume on it (by creating one or more PV's into
the GFS LVM).
then configure the other cluster members to mount the GFS cluster-fs
volume/filesystem using the GFS services over the iSCSI protocol.
that will allow all of the FTP servers to mount the shared volume
read/write concurrently. no more rsync.
i'd use the iSCSI hba to expose the backup volume as an iSCSI target and
attach to it from the other set members.
to do it right, you'll need to put up two additional hosts and install
GFS & iSCSI services on all of them.
you'll need to be using GbE, preferably channel-aggregated, if possible,
between the cluster members
read won't be as fast as direct-attach scsi raid, but there won't be any
rsync/cross-copy latency.
if load not too high on daily basis, maybe one gbe per host dedicated to
the iSCSI/GFS sync/locking traffic, and another to reach the outside world
-----snip----------
______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
