FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:29 PM
"James A. Peltier"
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

----- Original Message -----
| On 11/09/2010 12:58 AM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
| > Perhaps FreeNAS would fit the bill?
| >
| > http://freenas.org/features
| >
| >
| > Sent from my iPhone
| >
| > On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Gordon Messmer<yinyang@eburg.com> wrote:
| >
| >> On 11/07/2010 03:33 AM, Nicolas Ross wrote:
| >>>
| >>> Is there any other solution for building a SAN under linux ?
|
| How about openfiler: http://www.openfiler.com/
|
| Regards,
| Patrick
| _______________________________________________
| CentOS mailing list
| CentOS@centos.org
| http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

All the tools to build a SAN are available out there, but it is a more complicated problem then you might expect to develop one. For example, you could have GNU/Linux or Solaris 10 hosts that act as dumb iSCSI target enclosures with a bunch of disks in them. This device could have FC, 1 or 10 GbE, Infiniband or some other adapter and attach to your existing storage fabric. That's the easy part!

You then need a method for dealing with the high availability aspect. You need to be able to fence the storage while a fail-over is taking place. You need to (maybe) move MAC addresses and other storage IP bits. This is the hard part! Getting this right is not necessarily a trivial task.

Products like FreeNAS and OpenFiler only target the easy stuff.

Now, you could virtualize the head node using something like Xen, KVM or VMWare, then in case of failure or administrative necessity, fail over to the other physical hardware, which *may* negate some of the hard bits, but you would need to *really* test it in the most common scenarios to see if it fits your bill.



I have a solution that is currently centered around commodity storage bricks (Dell R510), flash PCI-E controllers, 1 or 10GbE (on separate Jumbo Frame Data Tier) and Solaris + ZFS.

So far it has worked out really well. Each R510 is a box with a fair bit of memory, running OpenIndiana for ZFS/RAIDZ3/Disk Dedup/iSCSI. Each brick is fully populated and in a RAIDZ2 configuration with 1 hot spare. Some have SSDs most have SAS or SATA. I export this storage pool as a single iSCSI target and I attach each of these targets to the SAN pool and provision from there.

I have two VMWare physical machines which are identically configured. If I need to perform administrative maintenance on the boxes I can migrate the host over to the other machine. This works for me, but it took a really long time to develop the solution and for the cost of my time it *might* have been cheaper to just buy some package deal.

It was a hell of a lot of fun learning though.

--
James A. Peltier
Systems Analyst (FASNet), VIVARIUM Technical Director
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone : 778-782-6573
Fax : 778-782-3045
E-Mail : jpeltier@sfu.ca
Website : http://www.fas.sfu.ca | http://vivarium.cs.sfu.ca
http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
MSN : subatomic_spam@hotmail.com


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 12:54 AM
John R Pierce
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On 11/08/10 4:29 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
> You then need a method for dealing with the high availability aspect. You need to be able to fence the storage while a fail-over is taking place. You need to (maybe) move MAC addresses and other storage IP bits. This is the hard part! Getting this right is not necessarily a trivial task.
>
> Products like FreeNAS and OpenFiler only target the easy stuff.

the -really- hard part is maintaining write cache coherency across
redundant storage servers. thats what seperates the pros from the toys.



btw, the product that the OP was asking about, the Quantum StorNext, I
did a bit of reading on that, its a distributed network storage system.
Quantum is selling it as a "Data Sharing and Archive" software, its not
a conventional SAN at all. It looks like its being sold to the TV post
production industry, using Apple XSan and XServer based storage.
Quantum acquired it when they picked up ADIC, who in turn had bought the
original company that had developed it.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 12:58 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On 11/8/10 6:29 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
> I have a solution that is currently centered around commodity storage bricks (Dell R510), flash PCI-E controllers, 1 or 10GbE (on separate Jumbo Frame Data Tier) and Solaris + ZFS.
>
> So far it has worked out really well. Each R510 is a box with a fair bit of memory, running OpenIndiana for ZFS/RAIDZ3/Disk Dedup/iSCSI. Each brick is fully populated and in a RAIDZ2 configuration with 1 hot spare. Some have SSDs most have SAS or SATA. I export this storage pool as a single iSCSI target and I attach each of these targets to the SAN pool and provision from there.
>
> I have two VMWare physical machines which are identically configured. If I need to perform administrative maintenance on the boxes I can migrate the host over to the other machine. This works for me, but it took a really long time to develop the solution and for the cost of my time it *might* have been cheaper to just buy some package deal.
>
> It was a hell of a lot of fun learning though.

Did you look at Nexentastor for this? You might need the commercial version for
a fail-over set but I think the basic version is free up to a fairly large size.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 01:36 AM
"Nicolas Ross"
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

> Perhaps FreeNAS would fit the bill?
>
> http://freenas.org/features
>

Thanks for the suggestions (others also), but I don't beleivee it'll do. We
need to be able to access the file system directly via FC so we can lock
files across systems. Pretty much like xSan, but not on apple. xSan is
really StorNext from Qlogic, but half the price per node. So, we are
searching for an alternative to xSan, on linux.

For those who don't know xSan, you can access a fibre-channel volume
directly, and simultanously among many clients computer or servers. Access,
locking and other tasks are handled by a metadata controler who is
reponsible for keeping things together. No controler, no volume, hence a
failover controler is needed.

So from what I've read so far, I'll be stuck with StorNext.

Some nodes have dedicated volumes on the fiber channel network, and I
beleive with what I've read that I could replicate not too difficulty what
we've done with the guid partition and apple lable volumes.

Thanks,
Nicolas

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 04:58 AM
Rudi Ahlers
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Nicolas Ross <rossnick-lists@cybercat.ca> wrote:
>> Perhaps FreeNAS would fit the bill?
>>
>> http://freenas.org/features
>>
>
> Thanks for the suggestions (others also), but I don't beleivee it'll do. We
> need to be able to access the file system directly via FC so we can lock
> files across systems. Pretty much like xSan, but not on apple. xSan is
> really StorNext from Qlogic, but half the price per node. So, we are
> searching for an alternative to xSan, on linux.
>
> For those who don't know xSan, you can access a fibre-channel volume
> directly, and simultanously among many clients computer or servers. Access,
> locking and other tasks are handled by a metadata controler who is
> reponsible for keeping things together. No controler, no volume, hence a
> failover controler is needed.
>
> So from what I've read so far, I'll be stuck with StorNext.
>
> Some nodes have dedicated volumes on the fiber channel network, and I
> beleive with what I've read that I could replicate not too difficulty what
> we've done with the guid partition and apple lable volumes.
>
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

Take a look @ Gluster / GlusterFS, it may just do what you need?


--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 07:53 AM
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

> On 11/8/10 6:29 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>>

> Did you look at Nexentastor for this? You might need the commercial
> version for
> a fail-over set but I think the basic version is free up to a fairly large
> size.

12T, IIRC.
That's not exactly great IMO.
You get that with a RAID10 over two populated 16bay Promise chassis.


Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 11:13 AM
Joshua Baker-LePain
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 at 9:36pm, Nicolas Ross wrote

> Thanks for the suggestions (others also), but I don't beleivee it'll do. We
> need to be able to access the file system directly via FC so we can lock
> files across systems. Pretty much like xSan, but not on apple. xSan is
> really StorNext from Qlogic, but half the price per node. So, we are
> searching for an alternative to xSan, on linux.
>
> For those who don't know xSan, you can access a fibre-channel volume
> directly, and simultanously among many clients computer or servers. Access,
> locking and other tasks are handled by a metadata controler who is
> reponsible for keeping things together. No controler, no volume, hence a
> failover controler is needed.

Have you looked at Red Hat's GFS? That seems to fit at least a portion of
your needs (I don't use it, so I don't know all that it does).

--
Joshua Baker-LePain
QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin
UCSF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 11:35 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On 11/09/2010 12:13 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> Have you looked at Red Hat's GFS? That seems to fit at least a portion of
> your needs (I don't use it, so I don't know all that it does).
>

Good point Joshua,

I was reading this thread and wondering how come no one brought up the
fact that you can achieve the entire desired feature set just using the
components already included in CentOS-5.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 11:40 AM
Rudi Ahlers
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 11/09/2010 12:13 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>> Have you looked at Red Hat's GFS? *That seems to fit at least a portion of
>> your needs (I don't use it, so I don't know all that it does).
>>
>
> Good point Joshua,
>
> I was reading this thread and wondering how come no one brought up the
> fact that you can achieve the entire desired feature set just using the
> components already included in CentOS-5.
>
> - KB
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


KB, I think the OP is looking for a nice set of userland tools which
was included in xServer


--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-09-2010, 11:40 AM
 
Default xServes are dead ;-( / SAN Question

> On 11/09/2010 12:13 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>> Have you looked at Red Hat's GFS? That seems to fit at least a portion
>> of
>> your needs (I don't use it, so I don't know all that it does).
>>
>
> Good point Joshua,
>
> I was reading this thread and wondering how come no one brought up the
> fact that you can achieve the entire desired feature set just using the
> components already included in CentOS-5.


But there is no GFS for OSX, IIRC.



Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org