Thanks mates. So the typical storage solution for the small size cluster may use IP SAN as I know before. Yes, I can export the data by using NFS directly without iSCSI/AoE but is there any good point to use XFS? I just know XFS is better for parallelized read/write operations in local disks. By the way, is there any good advantage to use XFS as the underlying local filesystem for cluster/distributed/parallel filesystem? Thanks very much. Eric On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/23/2011 4:30 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote: >> Le Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:03:33 +0800 vous écriviez: >> >>> I know it would be better if I can use Lustre but my interconnection >>> is a little slow. I suspect if it is feasible if using such parallel >>> file system. >>> >>> Does anyone has good idea on this deployment? >>> >> >> For this kind of setup, true cluster filesystems like Lustre, >> PVFS2/OrangeFS, Gluster, Ceph... would be much better. Striping 20 >> iSCSI volumes across would be awfully dangerous. >> >> I'd go with OrangeFS (pvfs.org) because I'm pretty happy with it so far >> (using XFS as the underlying local filesystem). It's precisely made to >> agreggate computing clusters storage. > > Typically one starts looking at hardware solutions after identifying the > needs of the target application/workload. > > Is the proposed storage cluster system simply a proof of concept > testbed, or will it actually be tasked with real work? If the latter > I'd rethink your iSCSI export to NFS server idea. You mentioned only 8 > disks. Just drop them directly into the NFS host and avoid many > potential headaches down the road. > > -- > Stan > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
