On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:many (most?) Lustre deployments are with SATA and md raid5 and GigE - can't get much cheaper than that. if you want storage node failover capabilities (which larger sites often do) or want to saturate an IB link then the price of the storage goes up but this is a consequence of wanting more reliability or performance, not anything to do with lustre. interestingly, one of the ways to provide dual-attached storage behind a failover pair of lustre servers (apart from buying SAS) would be via a networked-raid-1 device like Evgeniy's, so I don't see distributed block devices and distributed filesystems as being mutually exclusive. iSER (almost in http://stgt.berlios.de/) is also intriguing. quite likely. from what I understand (hopefully I am mistaken) they consider a merge task to be too daunting as the number of kernel subsystems that any scalable distributed filesystem touches is necessarily large. roadmaps indicate that parts of lustre are likely to move to userspace (partly to ease solaris and ZFS ports) so perhaps those performance critical parts that remain kernel space will be easier to merge. cheers, robin -
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| David Brown | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc2 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
