Re: Q: Cluster File System Reliability



On Sep 2, 8:17 am, Juha Laiho <Juha.La...@xxxxxx> wrote:
nicc777 <nicc...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

I am rather new to cluster file systems, so let me state my
requirements, and hopefully the kind people here get point me in the
right direction.

Basically I want a file system spanning multiple physical hosts, but
mounted on a server as a single mount point - almost like having some
kind of RAID over various physical nodes. The idea is that if one node
fails, the server should still be able to continue with processing
(assume it's something like a database). I am hoping that when the
failed file server(s) come back online, the "RAID" should be rebuild
on the fly, like a real RAID. This will be first prize.

This doesn't sound what commonly is called "cluster file system";
"cluster file system" (to me, at least), means a set of shared storage
accessible by several computers concurrently (as local storage).
So, the actual storage media will be concurrently connected to
several hosts, and all hosts are able to concurrently access the
file system(s) created on the shared media.

What you describe sounds something I've heard Google having developed
for their search data storage - but I haven't heard of such technology
being used anywhere else.

PS: if anybody knows something about battery backups for hard drives,
and how to protect the hard drive cache in case of power failures etc,
I would also like to hear some of your thoughts/learnings/experiences.

There are storage subsystems (disk racks) from various vendors with
various amounts of local battery-backed cache. As long as the write
to the cache completes, the disk subsystem will be in consistent
state (and when the power resumes, will flush any buffered data to
disks).
--
Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Espoo, Finland
(GC 3.0) GIT d- s+: a C++ ULSH++++$ P++@ L+++ E- W+$@ N++ !K w !O !M V
PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)

Thanks for your thoughts.

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disk Array Usage
    ... > server, and the rest are web, file and app servers. ... I see an array as a massive storage ... > than a disk array, why not have an actual server with a ton of space? ... If you have a number of disks which can be attached to by several machines ...
    (comp.sys.sun.hardware)
  • Re: Server and storage design for just OWA, POP and IMAP
    ... Storage: Do you intend for POP users to store mail locally only? ... and on the server? ... My biggest concern in that kind of design ... would be around reliability and disk subsystem. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Exchange Performance/Sizing Question
    ... CPU, Memory, but primarily Storage. ... profile and the disk IOPS required per user. ... Performance and Scalability Guide for Exchange Server 2003 ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Symmetrix DMX2000
    ... Symmetrix only contains storage disks? ... Connectrix connects servers with the Symmetrix machine. ... corresponding server. ... the data of the DB server with the disk in Symmetrix. ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: Why does MAIL DIR go slow during mail receive?
    ... Do you have more than one storage disk? ... > I have a question about an observed slowness in VMS MAIL. ... > directory while a different user sat in MAIL doing the DIR command. ...
    (comp.os.vms)