Hadoop and GFS are good examples and they work great for the
single distributed application that is *written* with them
in mind.
Unfortunately, I can not stretch my imagination hard enough
to see them as general purpose filesystems backing up data
for gazillions of non-cooperative applications. T
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 21:23 -1000, Tim Newsham wrote:
> > 2. do we have anybody successfully managing that much storage that is
> > also spread across the nodes? And if so, what's the best practices
> > out there to make the client not worry about where does the storage
> > actually co
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 09:43 +0100, Steve Simon wrote:
> > Well, with Linux, at least you have a benefit of a gazillions of FS
> > clients being available either natively or via FUSE.
>
> Do you have a link to a site which lists interesting FUSE filesystems,
> I am definitely not trying to troll, I
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:55 +0100, C H Forsyth wrote:
> >they emphatically don't go for posix semantics...
>
> what are "posix semantics"?
I'll bite:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/
[ anything else that would take an FD as an argument ]
http://www.opengroup.org/online
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 19:56 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > 2. do we have anybody successfully managing that much storage that is
> > also spread across the nodes? And if so, what's the best practices
> > out there to make the client not worry about where does the storage
> > actually co
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:55 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
>>they emphatically don't go for posix semantics...
>
> what are "posix semantics"?
whatever today's customer happens to think they are.
ron
2009/8/4 C H Forsyth :
>>they emphatically don't go for posix semantics...
>
> what are "posix semantics"?
perhaps wrongly, i'd assumed that the posix standard
implied some semantics in defining its file API, and
ron was referring to those. perhaps it defines less
than i assume - i've not studied
>they emphatically don't go for posix semantics...
what are "posix semantics"?
2009/8/4 erik quanstrom :
>> >
>> > Google?
>>
>> the exception that proves the rule? they emphatically
>> don't go for posix semantics...
>
> why would purveryers of 9p give a rip about posix sematics?
from ron:
> 10,000 machines, working on a single app, must have access to a common
> file store
> Well, with Linux, at least you have a benefit of a gazillions of FS
> clients being available either natively or via FUSE.
Do you have a link to a site which lists interesting FUSE filesystems,
I am definitely not trying to troll, I am always intrigued by others
ideas of how to reprisent data/AP
> >
> > Google?
>
> the exception that proves the rule? they emphatically
> don't go for posix semantics...
why would purveryers of 9p give a rip about posix sematics?
- erik
2. do we have anybody successfully managing that much storage that is
also spread across the nodes? And if so, what's the best practices
out there to make the client not worry about where does the storage
actually come from (IOW, any kind of proxying of I/O, etc)
http://labs.google.
2009/8/4 ron minnich :
>> 2. do we have anybody successfully managing that much storage that is
>> also spread across the nodes? And if so, what's the best practices
>> out there to make the client not worry about where does the storage
>> actually come from (IOW, any kind of proxying
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
> Is all of this storage attached to a very small number of IO nodes, or
> is it evenly spread across the cluster?
it's on a server. A big Lustre server using a DDN over (currently, I
believe) fiber channel.
> 2. do we have anybody succ
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 08:47 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > What are their requirements as
> > far as POSIX is concerned?
>
> 10,000 machines, working on a single app, must have access to a common
> file store with full posix semantics and it all has to work like it
> were one machine (their desktop
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> What are your clients running?
Linux
> What are their requirements as
> far as POSIX is concerned?
10,000 machines, working on a single app, must have access to a common
file store with full posix semantics and it all has to work like
On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:41 PM, ron minnich wrote:
I'm not a big fan of lustre. In fact I'm talking to someone who really
wants 9p working well so he can have lustre on all but a few nodes,
and those lustre nodes export 9p.
What are your clients running? What are their requirements as
far as POS
I'm not a big fan of lustre. In fact I'm talking to someone who really
wants 9p working well so he can have lustre on all but a few nodes,
and those lustre nodes export 9p.
ron
On Jul 30, 2009, at 9:31 AM, sqweek wrote:
2009/7/30 Roman V Shaposhnik :
This is sort of off-topic, but does anybody have any experience with
Ceph?
http://ceph.newdream.net/
Good or bad war stories (and general thoughts) would be quite
welcome.
Not with ceph itself, but the description
2009/7/30 Roman V Shaposhnik :
> This is sort of off-topic, but does anybody have any experience with
> Ceph?
> http://ceph.newdream.net/
>
> Good or bad war stories (and general thoughts) would be quite welcome.
Not with ceph itself, but the description and terminology they use
remind me a lot
20 matches
Mail list logo
