gallatin at cs.duke.edu
Wed Jan 9 07:39:45 PST 2008
"Alexandre \"Sunny\" Kovalenko" writes:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 08:23 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= writes:
> > > > OTOH that's all GPFS is.
> > >
> > > Far more features than that - 'robust', 'fault tolerant', 'Disaster Recovery'
> > > ... all the usual buzzwords.
> > >
> > > And nothing prevents using 'cluster' tools on a single box. Not storage-wise anyway.
> > Having had the misfortune of being involved in a cluster which used
> > GPFS, I can attest that GPFS is anything but "robust" and "fault
> > tolerant" in my experience. Granted this was a few years ago, and
> > things may have improved, but that one horrible experience was
> > sufficient to make me avoid GPFS for life.
> Would you mind sharing your experience, maybe in the private E-mail. I
> am especially interested in the platform you have used (as in AIX or
> Linux) and underlying storage configuration (as in directly attached vs.
> separate file system servers).
> I am running few small AIX clusters in the lab using GPFS 3.1 over iSCSI
> and so far was fairly pleased with that.
Linux, with GPFS 1.x over ethernet. If there was even the slightest
load on the ethernet network, and a GPFS heartbeat message got
lost, the entire FS would die. That did not meet my definition of
robust :(. Note that this was nearly 4 years ago, so it has likely
> However, OP's point was that ZFS has inherent cluster abilities, of
> which I have found no information whatsoever.
Indeed, but I do remember hearing the Lustre/ZFS rumors.
More information about the freebsd-current