We've several years of xfs experience now, and have not seen any
filesystem-related issues on systems up to 6TB. We've used a
distributed storage model until recently, but with teh CoRAID AoE
protocol hardware in place we now have over 30TB to start stringing
together on one consistent (virtual) hardware platform. So far, it's
xfs, with no problems.
gerry
Craig Tierney wrote:
Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 12:16 -0600, Craig Tierney wrote:
Dan Stromberg wrote:
Ooops, sorry, english is not my native language and I can make
mistakes :-) I liked pvfs before and I love pvfs2 now.
Well, I think the problems are those you are mentioning, first it
goes a bit slower than let's say nfs or something like gfs over gnbd
(for small clusters)... in any case it is not so slow. The other
is that you need the nodes that are metadata or I/O servers have
to be up, that means that the probability of file system failure is
higher.
The adventages are many, parallel I/O is a plus, not only for mpi
programs
but also for the normal tasks, if you try to convert the format of
a lot of images you can split the work between nodes, but this is
an adventage only if your file system can handle that, which is not
the case of nfs obviously.
In other words, pvfs2 is free, great and useful. it works well as
a scratch area and it uses resources that otherwise are not visible
for the user. And for myrinet users it goes over gm which is nice.
On a somewhat related note, are there any FOSS filesystems that can
surpass 16 terabytes in a single filesystem - reliably?
What do you want to do with your 16 TB? Does PVFS2 not meet your
needs or your level of reliability? What don't you find reliable
about it?
We want to store scientific datasets - and we actually wanted more like
30T, but had to settle for less.
I expect that xfs would work just fine. The question is, how can you
access it? You can export it with NFS, but the performance doesn't
scale.
If it'd be at least semi reliable, this application would probably be
fine with that.
My concern wouldn't be the stability of the xfs filesystem. We have
used it for almost 5 years now in the configuration discussed above.
The filesystems weren't as large as 16TB (no more than 2TB), but
that is so we could divide performance over several servers.
My concern with this setup isn't xfs, it would be the stability of
the storage. Also, if there is a disk hiccup (which will happen) that
repairing a 16 TB filesystem takes a long time. A distributed
filesystem (PVFS2, Ibrix, etc) you would only have to fix the one
volume, not the entire filesystem. There may be some filesystem
consistency checks after repair, but not to the extent of a full
filesystem check.
Craig
Why FOSS (not to start a flame war)? What if AcmeFS was reasonably
priced and did what you needed it to do?
We already have a commercial solution that's working pretty well, so if
we go commercial, we might return to that. FOSS tends to improve faster
though, and if you get it with a support contract, it seems pretty
win-win.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
--
Gerry Creager -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
