Thanks mates. So the typical storage solution for the small size
cluster may use IP SAN as I know before. Yes, I can export the data by
using NFS directly without iSCSI/AoE but is there any good point to
use XFS? I just know XFS is better for parallelized read/write
operations in local disks.
By the way, is there any good advantage to use XFS as the underlying
local filesystem for cluster/distributed/parallel filesystem?
Thanks very much.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 4:30 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
>> Le Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:03:33 +0800 vous écriviez:
>>> I know it would be better if I can use Lustre but my interconnection
>>> is a little slow. I suspect if it is feasible if using such parallel
>>> file system.
>>> Does anyone has good idea on this deployment?
>> For this kind of setup, true cluster filesystems like Lustre,
>> PVFS2/OrangeFS, Gluster, Ceph... would be much better. Striping 20
>> iSCSI volumes across would be awfully dangerous.
>> I'd go with OrangeFS (pvfs.org) because I'm pretty happy with it so far
>> (using XFS as the underlying local filesystem). It's precisely made to
>> agreggate computing clusters storage.
> Typically one starts looking at hardware solutions after identifying the
> needs of the target application/workload.
> Is the proposed storage cluster system simply a proof of concept
> testbed, or will it actually be tasked with real work? If the latter
> I'd rethink your iSCSI export to NFS server idea. You mentioned only 8
> disks. Just drop them directly into the NFS host and avoid many
> potential headaches down the road.