On Wednesday 10 September 2008 16:34:45 Mark Hahn wrote: > >> active/active seems strange to me - it implies that the bottleneck > >> is the OSS (OST server), rather than the disk itself. and a/a means > >> each OSS has to do more locking for the shared disk, which would seem > >> to make the problem worse... > > > > No, you can do active/active with several systems > > > > Raid1 > > / \ > > OSS1 OSS2 > > \ / > > Raid2 > > > > > > (Raid1 and Raid2 are hardware raid systems). > > > > Now OSS1 will primarily serve Raid1 and OSS2 will primarily serve Raid2. > > So > > yes, I know - that's how HP SFS is set up. the OP was talking > active-active, though, meaning that IO at any instant can go to either OSS > and still make it onto a particular raid. otherwise it's active/passive, > what SFS does.
You mean to either OSS, but still on the very same OST ;) No, that won't work, simply not the way Lustre works. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Schubert Q-Leap Networks GmbH _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
