From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 16:00:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8629116A402 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:00:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from speedtoys.racing@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CA013C471 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:00:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from speedtoys.racing@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 71so217053ugh for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:00:43 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=ZfwnJJZwXESWYNAyayjd9dsABvszERPSQXPthY0r0DJqBqVuFczdCwqe9uu15kX6R+z8K8iQGpTazXnvTKI8KJp3/x9j6NS7cPJbY8yYakaMuvDwcUEVSXzhtEG36EAm88jMebYalnDotqVOKHdlbHnzmd0Y43bK4lv7w76xUSs= Received: by 10.78.106.3 with SMTP id e3mr82018huc.1171382442793; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.17.18 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:00:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:00:42 -0800 From: "Jeff Mohler" To: "Nicole Harrington" In-Reply-To: <20070213075627.63126.qmail@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <45CD6FF5.8070007@freebsd.org> <20070213075627.63126.qmail@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Chris Haulmark , Eric Anderson Subject: Re: UFS2 with SAN X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:00:48 -0000 For certain workloads, linux is far better tuned for NFS than Fbsd..netapp as a server or not. On 2/12/07, Nicole Harrington wrote: > > --- Eric Anderson wrote: > > > On 02/10/07 00:54, Chris Haulmark 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 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. > > > > > > Well, I'm not sure what issues they had, but have > > had fantastic success > > with NFS and FreeBSD. FreeBSD with the right > > hardware and tweaks can > > make some NetApp boxes look weak. *cough* WAFL > > *cough* > > > > > > >> 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. :) > > > > > > The problem isn't the environment or hardware, it's > > developers skilled > > to do the work. They're all either in NDA's, off > > writing something > > else, or just too busy to provide any amount of > > input. > > > > Eric > > > I have a set of servers NFS mounted to a Netapp and > after hurs of tuning with netapp's help. (after > getting through the idiots adking what FreeBSd was) > I got very low performance. I was of course then told > by Netapp to switch to Linux for better NFS support. > > I would love for any help with tuning this further, > but I cannot say that FreeBSD with Netapp NFS will be > great. Of course, I have not been able to test if > indeed Linux would be any better. > I will say however that I have a large number of > small files which tends to not do well with NFS. > > > Nicole > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >