Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:23:08 +0100 From: Indigo <indigo@voda.cz> To: "Chris Haulmark" <chris@sigd.net>, "Eric Anderson" <anderson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 with SAN Message-ID: <op.tnjd8uyp5sheu4@spyro.eiecon.net> In-Reply-To: <6FC9F9894A9F8C49A722CF9F2132FC2204C9DAB0@ms05.mailstreet2003.net> References: <6FC9F9894A9F8C49A722CF9F2132FC2204C9DAAE@ms05.mailstreet2003.net> <45CD6AA6.1000003@freebsd.org> <6FC9F9894A9F8C49A722CF9F2132FC2204C9DAB0@ms05.mailstreet2003.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:54:57 +0100, Chris Haulmark <chris@sigd.net> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eric Anderson [mailto:anderson@freebsd.org] >> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:48 AM >> To: Chris Haulmark >> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: UFS2 with SAN >> >> On 02/09/07 19:30, Chris Haulmark wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am looking into setting up a SAN with several web servers that >> > will be clustered. It would be a FC network using Qlogic cards >> > in each of those FreeBSD web servers. It would be about 5+ >> > of those web servers. >> > >> > I want to have the capability to share the same web data across >> > those web servers. I have scorched the entire mailing list and >> > found that there were some work on GFS porting over to FreeBSD. >> > It seems like that it is just all talk and if I am wrong, could >> > you have my head turned over to where I can find out how to enable >> > GFS on those FreeBSD systems. >> >> GFS on FreeBSD is indeed dead. Not enough people stepped up to help >> port it. > > I really feared to hear that! > If it was possible to use OCFS2 then thats a cluster-fs that can handle reasonable traffic. Does it work in FreeBSD? >> >> > If GFS is out of question, which file system am I recommendeded >> > to attempt to use for this SAN setup? >> >> NFS. >> >> > My first thought to use UFS2 and attempt is to allow only one web >> > server to have a write/read access while the reminder would be >> > read only access. That should prevent from lockings that is similar >> > on NFS/NAS. >> >> This will result it the read/write system seeing the data ok, and the >> rest getting corrupt data without knowing it, and probably crashing. >> UFS2 is not cluster aware. You could mount all the hosts read only, >> and >> then update the mount point on one to rw, makes changes, then back to >> ro, then unmount/remount on the other boxes. > > That's my original idea if I do not have anything else better to go > with. > >> >> That's all still a kludge to simulate what NFS will do for you. Why >> won't NFS work for you? > > I have a client who wants to go from NAS to a true SAN solution with > full > fibre channel network. I would hate to lose the opportunity for this > client > to continue using FreeBSD as the choice of OS for his web servers. > Currently, > his set up is using NAS with NFS. He complains of locking files that > occurs > too often. > > I had hoped to find more better solution and make this client much more > happier > with all the FreeBSD support that can be provided. > >> >> I agree that it would be fantastic to have a clustered file system for >> FreeBSD, and I've done lot's of hunting and nagging vendors to support >> it - but it's just not there. > > We should get few bandwagons and get in circle. It could be likely that > I could > provide access for the developers to test and get whatever file system > and other > necessaries needed to be working. :) > > Thanks for your reply. > >> >> Eric > Vasek
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.tnjd8uyp5sheu4>