From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 12 04:34:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DD716A4CE for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 04:34:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.263.net (mx01.263.net.cn [211.150.96.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41A543D82 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 04:34:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yfyoufeng@263.net) Received: from [10.217.12.198] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEA4C3792; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:34:35 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from yfyoufeng@263.net) Received: from [10.217.12.198] (unknown [61.135.152.194]) by antispam-2 (Coremail:263(050316)) with SMTP id cqA1ANvcgkJMBJjC.1 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:34:35 +0800 (CST) X-TEBIE-Originating-IP: [61.135.152.194] From: yf-263 To: Eric Anderson In-Reply-To: <4282D173.1040805@centtech.com> References: <3EA9E48804411F41941A18169042D10401469D@omega3.ebaseweb.com> <1115864757.3938.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4282D173.1040805@centtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: Unix-driver.org Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:34:03 +0800 Message-Id: <1115872443.3924.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: FreeBSD Clustering List Subject: Re: FreeBSD Clustering wishlist - Was: Introduction & RE: Clustering with Freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: yfyoufeng@263.net List-Id: Clustering FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:34:40 -0000 在 2005-05-11三的 22:45 -0500，Eric Anderson写道： > Ok - I'm changing the subject here in an attempt to gather information. > > Here's my wishlist: > > FreeBSD have a 'native' clustered filesystem. This is different than > shared media (we already can do that over fiber channel, ggated, soon Yes, the clustered filesystem will not run on SAN, since that will give a high cost. > iscsi and AOE). This would allow multiple servers to access the same > data read/write - highly important for load balancing applications like > web servers, mail servers, and NFS servers. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3022.html <-- this article give some info about the small file operations among the web, mail, IM, netdisk, blog, etc. service. and that's our DFS targets at ;) > > Online growable filesystem. I know I can growfs a filesystem now, but > doing online while data is being used is *insanely* useful. Reiserfs > and Polyserve's FS (a clustered filesystem, not open-source) do this well. Yes, we also support that with our insanely mechanism. And you know in the current clustered fs, as GoogleFS, Lustre, etc. which can be built on online growfs. That's also our way to do it. > > FreeBSD's UFS2 made to do journaling. There's already someone working > on this. Good news. > > I believe the above mean that we need a distributed lock manager too, so > might as well add that to my wishlist. By the specific application & services, we can easily remove the distributed lock manager easily with upper layer way. You can read the GoogleFS paper to get some further info. > > Single filesystem limits set very high - 16TB would be a good minimum. The limits can be removed. > > Vinum/geom (?) made to allow added a couple more 'disks' - be it a real > scsi device, or another vinum device - to existing vinum's, so I can > extend my vinum stripe, raid, concat, etc to a larger volume size, > without worrying about which disk is where. I want to stripe mirrors of > raids, and raid striped mirrors of stripes. I know it sounds crazy, but > I really *do* have uses for all this. :) Yes, that's Lustre's way, and we also add a logical disk layer to support it. > > We currently pay lots of money every year (enough to pay an engineers > salary) for support and maintenance with Polyserve. They make a good Would you like to persuade to pay us for the developing ;) > > product (we need it for the clustered filesystem and NFS distributed > lock manager stuff) - I'd much rather see that go to FreeBSD. >From my current employer's calculation, what we do will save the cost of one zero, i.e. from 10 to 1 $, multi plus the 1,000+ users we have. So that's a really worthy project for the world. At last, any help & donate & contribute among the requirements & tech. domains are great appreciated ! > > Eric > > > -- yf-263 Unix-driver.org