Re: Cheap Clustered FS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  Yeah, the Lustre FS looks very promising... I've even concidered the
CODA filesystem, but since I'll be implementing this solution where
management wants support they pay for, it will most likely be GFS as
my servers are RHAS 3.0 machines.
  Thanks for the help, though. BTW, while I was trying to get my
_simple_ ext3 solution working, I tried using mount options such as
'sync' and 'dirsync' but as you already know they didn't help.
  Just for my own benefit, is the reason none of these options would
work is because all FS IO is ran through the VFS and that is where the
caching occurs? In particular, I want to say that the "buffer_head"
kernel buffer is the specific slab that is used for the caching?

Thanks,
Jon

On 4/13/06, Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> may be lustre
>
> On 4/13/06, Erik Mouw <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 05:24:34PM -0400, Jon Miller wrote:
> > > I have two machines which have redundant paths to the same shared scsi
> > > disk. I've had no problem creating the multipath'ed device md0 to
> > > handle my redundant pathing. But now I'd like to use a simple FS, such
> > > as ext3, mounted rw on the first machine and ro on the second machine.
> > > The idea is that the second machine, mounting the FS ro, would be able
> > > to read any new data being written in the FS.
> > > Everything has been rather easy to setup, but anything being created
> > > on the FS is not seen on the other machine with the FS mounted ro.
> > > That is, I can create a file on the first machine and I never see that
> > > file from the second machine until I remount the FS.
> > > At this point, I am actually trying to avoid GFS, OCFS, veritas
> > > clustered FS options as well as NFS. If there was a simple hack, that
> > > I'm missing, to enable the updates to the FS to be seen in realtime,
> > > then I'd actually prefer that method.
> > > Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > I'm affraid the only way out is indeed GFS or OCFS. Those filesystems
> > are specifically designed to be mounted by several hosts and (should)
> > have caching and locking issues covered.
> >
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > --
> > +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
> > | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
>
>
> --
> Raz
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux