Re: iSCSI / GFS shared web server file system

[James <jchase@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Web servers are mostly read-only, so unless your web servers are going
> to do a lot of writing to shared storage I would simply use rsync to a
> local disk in each server, or use NFS, even NFS and heartbeat for
> redundancy will be 100 times simpler to setup and maintain.
>
> GFS/OCFS2/Gluster/Lustre are really for multi-writers to shared
> storage such as a large NFS server cluster (4-8-16 nodes) serving
> thousands of clients for general file services, not thousands of
> clients accessing shared storage directly.
>    
It's a good point. Thanks for making it. OCFS2 seems like a pain to 
maintain with new rpm's for each new kernel update, and GFS a pain to 
setup at the least.

We just want scalability for future hosting options; it seems like GFS 
is the most powerful option. But you're right that there is not a lot of 
writing going on and NFS is probably the best option.
> -Ross
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>    


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos