isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
My thread on SSI/VM/Sharedroot got me thinking because of the input some of
you have put into the thread. There is some very valuable information in
there.
In fact, it got me wondering if my FC path might not be the greatest based on
Gordan's (I think it was) input on the subject. I've also seen a few posts
about iSCSI lately. Can anyone shed a little light on iSCSI and what I would
need to give it a try.
iSCSI is just a connection protocol like Fibre Channel. They both do the
same thing. iSCSI works over ethernet, while FC works over fibre. iSCSI
is cheaper, and FC has traditionally been faster (although the point
gets a bit moot with 1Gb and 10Gb ethernet as the storage stops being
the bottleneck.
Can iSCSI be used to run a clustered LAMP setup which would be as flexible as
FC for growth and management?
iSCSI and FC are equivalent. I personally prefer iSCSI because it's
cheaper. In terms of features there isn't a great deal to choose between
them.
Preferably, without having to buy any hardware to try it out :). I've already
got FC gear but it looks like iSCSI is much easier to deal with. I read
somewhere or had found, an open source iSCSI target driver no less.
Yes, iSCSI is now ISS pretty much end-to-end. But if you already have FC
gear and if you have the required drivers for it, then there's no need
to replace it.
Here is another thing you may find interesting:
http://sourceware.org/cluster/ddraid/
I stumbled upon it last night, and the ides seems great - network RAID
3.5 (n+1 like RAID 3,4,5). It seems to make sense for small-ish
clusters, or situations where you are stacking RAID / cluster levels
(e.g. RAID 3.5+3.5). But without the ability to dynamically add drives
(like in standard MD software RAID) I'm not sure how useful it would be
if you need a scaleable solution. It also wouldn't allow you to power
down half of your cluster at off-peak times.
Gordan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
