pNFS server completed

[Karli Sjöberg]

Rick Macklem <rmacklem at uoguelph.ca> skrev: (24 april 2018 14:36:24 CEST)
>Karli Sjöberg wrote:
>[stuff snipped]
>>OK, I think I understand, thank you for the explanation!
>>
>>So you could say that this enhancement is more about the performance
>>benifit of scaling out, rather than resiliance/tolerance?
>Yes, although without the DS mirroring (which is optional and doesn't
>have to
>be done), you would go from one SPOF to N SPOFs.
>
>To be honest, this pNFS service will not be useful for many. Only
>people who
>need to scale out beyond the limits of one NFS server and find it more
>convenient
>that creating a second NFS server.
>
>Improving resiliance/tolerance for an NFS server is a separate topic
>(and would
>apply to the MDS of this pNFS service as well).
>I don't have any expertise w.r.t. this, but something like HA (which I
>just learned
>about from the email thread) might be appropriate. If you can build a
>storage
>subsystem with internal redundancy (raid at the drive level) and then
>have
>two servers "attached" to the storage subsystem so that it can fail
>over
>from the 1st to 2nd server, that would be a good start.
>With that, you would just need to have something that would tell the
>nfs
>servers to start/stop when the HA failover happens, I think?
>This is a really interesting problem, but not one for me. Of course if
>someone
>gets to the point where it needs an nfsd tweak to make the fail over
>work, I
>could help with that.
>
>Thanks for your interest, rick

And thank you for working on this!

/K


-- 
Skickat från min Android-enhet med K-9 Mail. Ursäkta min fåordighet.