On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:26 -0800, Lin Shen (lshen) wrote: > > > > If you absolutely can not have a bit of "cluster software > > running", you'll probably need to use a client/server > > approach like NFS instead of a cluster file system like GFS. > > How about Luster? It's a cluster file system, but seems to me it doesn't > require much extra cluster software. Lustre clients do not need to be cluster aware. (Neither do NFS clients.) If you are willing to sacrifice fault tolerance, you can run Lustre without a cluster stack. If you want fault tolerance, you have to go get a third-party cluster stack, like heartbeat (or linux-cluster; but no one's done it AFAIK), to provide the failover. OSS/OST locations are stored in a replicated LDAP database, which you must set up as well. As a side note, I think HP was working on building a (non-Free) metadata server cluster product for Lustre: http://h20311.www2.hp.com/HPC/cache/276636-0-0-0-121.html GFS has no concept of "client" and "server". If you mount a GFS volume, you need to be part of that file system's cluster. -- Lon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
