View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
humbletech99 Veteran
Joined: 26 May 2005 Posts: 1229 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: Scalable Storage Clustering with redundancy? What to use? |
|
|
I'm looking at implementing a large and scalable storage solution to replace lots of file servers which needs to meet the following requirements:
1. Redundancy
2. Scalability/Expandability
3. Performance
4. Single Directory tree for all storage
5. Preferably runs on Linux, my favourite.
6. Preferably on commodity hardware that is easy to replace/add, although not necessary
Ideally I'd like it to have something like a Global Filesystem like AFS or Microsoft's DFS where everything is organized into one directory tree, but also to have redundancy and data security like a Cluster Filesystem, so if one or more nodes breaks then it still works and we just put in new nodes. I also need to be able to extend it by putting in new nodes so that I can make the storage grow indefinitely.
At the moment my storage requirements are 15-30TB, but this will increase and so I need to able to add more space by adding more nodes.
What I think I am really after is a Cluster FileSystem, something like the Google File System, except that is not available cos Google are evil and eat up lots of talented open source people and keep cool stuff like that to themselves.
Ideally the solution should also be fast and reliable, so that I can crunch data on it from other servers.
Of course it doesn't __have__ to be open source or unixy or anything, but it would be nice...
Any ideas? _________________ The Human Equation:
value(geeks) > value(mundanes) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex.blackbit Advocate
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 2397
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi,
in a german it magazine called ix there was a quite good article about that topic some time ago, but since you live in london i guess you will not be able to read it.
DFS is well... okay, but the underlying CIFS protocol cannot be clustered in the current implementations from microsoft and samba, BUT samba is currently working on that in a separated CVS tree. afaik afs is the best solution for large systems. clients exist for all important systems and server can be clustered. i never toughed it myself, but i do read only good things about it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
humbletech99 Veteran
Joined: 26 May 2005 Posts: 1229 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks, I had started reading up on AFS, although I think Coda is newer... I'll keep reading. _________________ The Human Equation:
value(geeks) > value(mundanes) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
richard.scott Veteran
Joined: 19 May 2003 Posts: 1497 Location: Oxfordshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How did you get on with your research?
Have you started to use Coda or OpenAFS? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
humbletech99 Veteran
Joined: 26 May 2005 Posts: 1229 Location: London
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no it looks like we'll have to buy a proprietary solution since I'm not sure any of the open source opens are rock solid enough... _________________ The Human Equation:
value(geeks) > value(mundanes) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sf_alpha Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 Posts: 136 Location: Bangkok, TH
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I an not sure. But I think GFS + GNBD is suitable.
GFS client layer itself provide fail-over if any GNBD server fail.
But GNBD server must can access same storage device (via SAN, multipath, etc).
GNBD servers that share same target will maintain its consistency using fencing but it must properly configured. _________________ Gentoo Mirrors in Thailand (and AP)
http://gentoo.in.th |
|
Back to top |
|
|
humbletech99 Veteran
Joined: 26 May 2005 Posts: 1229 Location: London
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes but by the time you have a san, you've paid for the proprietary solution...
I wanted a clustered filesystem that could just scale out on white box hardware... _________________ The Human Equation:
value(geeks) > value(mundanes) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nwmcsween n00b
Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 41
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ceph is what your looking for. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentoo-freak n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2009 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject: wondering about some information about ceph on gentoo |
|
|
i was wondering about some information about ceph and gentoo posted here or somewhere else... found only a few mailing lists and not good information about this...
has anyone played around with some gentoo and ceph ?
greetz nerds |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vaxbrat l33t
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 731 Location: DC Burbs
|
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:23 pm Post subject: ceph-deploy? |
|
|
Just finished setting up ceph on top of btrfs on a few servers as an experiment. However their site is all gung-ho about using ceph-deploy, but the zip I pulled today doesn't want to work under either python 2.7 or python 3.2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gentoo-freak n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2009 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: ceph-deploy? |
|
|
vaxbrat wrote: | Just finished setting up ceph on top of btrfs on a few servers as an experiment. However their site is all gung-ho about using ceph-deploy, but the zip I pulled today doesn't want to work under either python 2.7 or python 3.2 |
did you have an update to this topic ?
cheers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|