xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2 questions

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2 questions
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:55:48 +0200
>received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEE057306; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:55:49 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, "Libor Vanìk" <libor@xxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020412155435.038711c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3CB6E981.8C29617F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1018969527.24543.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Lord schrieb:
> 
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 09:04, Simon Matter wrote:
> > Seth Mos schrieb:
> > >
> > > At 14:25 12-4-2002 +0200, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Libor_Van=ECk?= wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >I'd like to ask 2 small yes/no questions about XFS:
> > > >- does XFS support fs resising?
> > >
> > > Only larger, shrinking is not supported.
> > >
> > > >- is there any way how to have physicaly more (Linux) machines which 
> > > >would
> > > >act like one big XFS (probably all driven by one "master" machine which
> > > >would handle I/O requests)?
> > >
> > > There are some other filesystem block layers that can do this but I don't
> > > know if any of them actually work with XFS. I see some trivial test 
> > > reports
> > > but I can't remember if any of them was succesful or not.
> >
> > You could use network block devices on several physikal machines and
> > build one big RAID0/1/5 volume with it on the master server. Then put
> > XFS or LVM/XFS on top of it. I tried this once and it worked quite well
> > and fast. If been told you can get better performance than with NFS.
> >
> > -Simon
> >
> 
> If you mount one xfs filesystem from several hosts like this then you
> are heading for data corruption very quickly. There is no way to manage
> cache coherency between the machines in this setup, and all the machines
> can end up modifying metadata independently.

This is what I meant:

+----------+      +----------+      +----------+
| Server0  |      | Server1  |      | Server2  |
|          |      |          |      |          |
|          |      |          |      |          |
|  /nbd0   |      |  /nbd1   |      |  /nbd2   |
|     ^    |      |     ^    |      |     ^    |
+-----|----+      +-----|----+      +-----|----+
      |                 |                 |
      |                 |                 |
      |                 |                 |
      |                 \-------\         |
      |                         |         |
      |                         |         |
      |                         |         |
      |     +-------------------|--+      |
      |     |       Big Iron    |  |      |
      |     |                   |  |      |
      |     |                   |  |      |
      |     |                   |  |      |
      \----------->/dev/nbd0    |  |      |
            |      /dev/nbd1 <-/   |      |
            |      /dev/nbd2 <-----------/
            |                      |
            |   /dev/md0:RAID5 {   |
            |      /dev/nbd0       |
            |      /dev/nbd1       |
            |      /dev/nbd2 }     |
            |                      |
            |                      |
            |   XFS on /dev/md0    |
            |                      |
            +----------------------+

Is _this_ dangerous or did you get me wrong? IIRC it has worked perfect
and I didn't see any corruption.

-Simon

> 
> The only way to do this now is NFS. CXFS will allow this configuration
> when it is available for Linux. However CXFS is still a ways off, and
> will not be open sourced.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --
> 
> Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
> Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@xxxxxxx



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>