This is not specifically CentOS-related - though I will probably execute
this design on CentOS if I decide to do so. It will certainly be some kind
of Linux.
At any rate, here's my situation. I would like to build a fairly large
storage solution (let us say, 100 TB). I want this solution to be
distributed and redundant. I want to be able to lose part of the machines
involved and still stay operational (the bigger part, the better). I would
prefer to avoid having to buy large servers to accomplish this task.
What I am soliciting here is thoughts, reports from experience,
recommendations, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Boris.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> Hello listmates,
>
> This is not specifically CentOS-related - though I will probably execute
> this design on CentOS if I decide to do so. It will certainly be some kind
> of Linux.
>
> At any rate, here's my situation. I would like to build a fairly large
> storage solution (let us say, 100 TB). I want this solution to be
> distributed and redundant. I want to be able to lose part of the machines
> involved and still stay operational (the bigger part, the better). I would
> prefer to avoid having to buy large servers to accomplish this task.
>
> What I am soliciting here is thoughts, reports from experience,
> recommendations, etc.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Boris.
Hello Boris,
I'm in a similar search for a scalable and resilient solution. So far I like
glusterfs, relatively easy to setup, no meta-server required, decent
performance, but I haven't tested it thoroughly. Been playing with their
latest beta release in a raid0+1 setup; haven't managed to lose any data yet.
I'll also be interested in opinions from other people.
--
Nux!
www.nux.ro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
> Hello Boris,
>
> I'm in a similar search for a scalable and resilient solution. So far I
> like
> glusterfs, relatively easy to setup, no meta-server required, decent
> performance, but I haven't tested it thoroughly. Been playing with their
> latest beta release in a raid0+1 setup; haven't managed to lose any data
> yet.
>
> I'll also be interested in opinions from other people.
>
> --
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Nux,
Thanks for your response. I have looked into glusterfs and I like it too. I
just haven't found the hardware to try it on.
What is RAID0+1? The flat RAID with one parity disk?
Boris.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Laurent Wandrebeck
<l.wandrebeck@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm happily running moosefs (packages available in rpmforge repo) for a
> year and a half, 120TB, soon 200. So easy to setup and grow it's
> indecent
>
> Laurent.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
Hello Laurent,
Thanks! Very useful info, I never even heard of MooseFS and it sounds very
nice.
One question: what happens if you lose your master server in their
designation? Or is it possible to make the master server redundant as well?
Boris.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>>
>> Hello Boris,
>>
>> I'm in a similar search for a scalable and resilient solution. So far I
>> like
>> glusterfs, relatively easy to setup, no meta-server required, decent
>> performance, but I haven't tested it thoroughly. Been playing with their
>> latest beta release in a raid0+1 setup; haven't managed to lose any data
>> yet.
>>
>> I'll also be interested in opinions from other people.
>>
>> --
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
>
> Nux,
>
> Thanks for your response. I have looked into glusterfs and I like it too. I
> just haven't found the hardware to try it on.
I "tested" it on 4 VMs.. The performance was crap as expected, but wanted to
see how it behaves when I suddenly remove a node from the setup and so on.
(it went well, the setup froze for a second but after that kept working at
normal parameters)
>
> What is RAID0+1? The flat RAID with one parity disk?
No, I should've rephrased this, I meant the likes of raid10, of course, in
Glusterfs "speak". Basically I had 2 pairs of replicated nodes and files
stripped across all this.
I even ran a VM on top of this VM based glusterfs setup.. not the speediest
VM, but was usable. :-)
--
Nux!
www.nux.ro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> Hello Laurent,
>
> Thanks! Very useful info, I never even heard of MooseFS and it
> sounds very nice.
>
> One question: what happens if you lose your master server in their
> designation? Or is it possible to make the master server redundant
> as well?
Master HA is not yet possible from moosefs itself.
You can use one (or more) metalogger(s) to keep backups of metadata,
so you can start another master to replace the failing one.
master (ECC ram, redundant psu) never failed here, fingers crossed
Laurent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
For a RAID 0+1, drives are first combined into multiple level 0 RAIDs
that are themselves treated as single drives to be combined into a
single RAID 1.
Phil
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov
> wrote:
> Boris Epstein wrote on 02/04/2012 11:57 AM:
> > What is RAID0+1?
>
> Nested RAID. Paraphrasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID :
>
> For a RAID 0+1, drives are first combined into multiple level 0 RAIDs
> that are themselves treated as single drives to be combined into a
> single RAID 1.
>
> Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
Thanks Phil!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/05/2012 04:37 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Phil Schaffner<Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov
>> wrote:
>
>> Boris Epstein wrote on 02/04/2012 11:57 AM:
>>> What is RAID0+1?
>>
>> Nested RAID. Paraphrasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID :
>>
>> For a RAID 0+1, drives are first combined into multiple level 0 RAIDs
>> that are themselves treated as single drives to be combined into a
>> single RAID 1.
>>
Google (or other search engine) and Wikipedia are truly a wonder
--
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe
Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
distributed storage/home-made cloud recommendations
