UFS2 with SAN

Tue Feb 13 16:39:40 UTC 2007

Its pretty much that simple.

You cannot share SAN data..well..you -can- make a LUN appear as a shared NFS
or CIFS share on a Netapp, but I havent tried it in a while..but you -can-.

But in the normal world..you cannot...you would have to make it available
via NFS to other client.   Thats the key difference between SAN and NAS.

On 2/13/07, Chris Haulmark <chris at sigd.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicole Harrington [mailto:drumslayer2 at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:56 AM
> > To: Eric Anderson; Chris Haulmark
> > Cc: freebsd-fs at freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: UFS2 with SAN
> >
> > --- Eric Anderson <anderson at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/10/07 00:54, Chris Haulmark wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Eric Anderson [mailto:anderson at freebsd.org]
> > > >> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:48 AM
> > > >> To: Chris Haulmark
> > > >> Cc: freebsd-fs at 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.
>
> That is what I would like to avoid telling my client to do
> The same thing. "Stay with NFS and tolerate it."
>
> I had hoped a SAN solution would be possible for
> FreeBSD.  So far, it appears that it is not possible to
> share the same file system across several web servers.
>
> Chris
> >
> >  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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>