On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:50:13PM +, Julian Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand exactly what AFS offers in this area,
> but it comes with a lot of extra stuff that I don't need, and also seems
> very complicated.
>
> I think I'll persevere with dupfs/LD_PRELOAD, and see how well i
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:54:02 +0100
Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Per-Erik Persson wrote:
> > AFS would handle your storage in a redundant and distributed way
> > where you "easily" can add and remove a machine.
> > But this is not a thing
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Per-Erik Persson wrote:
> AFS would handle your storage in a redundant and distributed way where
> you "easily" can add and remove a machine.
> But this is not a thing you set up in an afternoon :-)
> People seems to be afraid of it since it's complexity.
On Wednesday, November 16, "Will H. Backman" wrote:
>
> Maybe OpenBSD can merge with OpenVMS, which should be easy given that
> four of the letters are already the same. OpenVMS has some amazing
> clustering capabilities.
It's actually 5 letters... and if *you* can't even get that
much right, ho
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Marco Peereboom
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:41 AM
> To: knitti
> Cc: Julian Smith; misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Filesystem redundancy
>
> This is actually pret
This is actually pretty common believe it or not. This does not
provide filesystem redundancy though. What this provides is a
mechanism to have multiple servers to touch the same disks. There
clearly is some danger here since you can't have multiple machines
touching the same files
On 2005-11-16 11:08:51 +, Julian Smith wrote:
> One way of handling this would be to write a filesystem that copies the
> contents of modified files over a network before close() returns. That
> way, as long as a SMTP server (say) checks the return from close()
> before telling the sender that
There are SCSI enclosures with the ability to connect to two different
SCSI buses, so they can be accessed from two different machines.
I _think_ the SCSI architecture could allow more than one host
adapter on a bus. _But_ I never heard someone did this. I presume it
would also depend on the host
AFS would handle your storage in a redundant and distributed way where
you "easily" can add and remove a machine.
But this is not a thing you set up in an afternoon :-)
People seems to be afraid of it since it's complexity.
But when the work is done you wonder why people pay huge amounts for NAS
I've been wondering about how to cope with random hardware failures when
data is being received from a WAN and written to local storage. As I
understand it, CARP(4) will enable any one of N machines to handle
incoming requests, so hardware failure of up to N-1 machines will be
handled.
But if each
10 matches
Mail list logo
