On Oct 20, 2007, at 20:23, Vincent Fox wrote:
> To my mind ZFS has a serious deficiency for JBOD usage in a high-
> availability clustered environment.
>
> Namely, inability to tie spare drives to a particular storage group.
>
> Example in clustering HA setups you would would want 2 SAS JBOD
>
In our data center on CRITICAL systems we plan to survive chains of several
single-type failures. The HA standards we apply to a mail-server for 30,000
people are neccessarily quite high.
A fully redundant 2-node failover clustered system can survive failures of half
or more of it's systems and
Vincent Fox wrote:
> To my mind ZFS has a serious deficiency for JBOD usage in a high-availability
> clustered environment.
>
I don't agree.
> Namely, inability to tie spare drives to a particular storage group.
>
> Example in clustering HA setups you would would want 2 SAS JBOD units and
>
To my mind ZFS has a serious deficiency for JBOD usage in a high-availability
clustered environment.
Namely, inability to tie spare drives to a particular storage group.
Example in clustering HA setups you would would want 2 SAS JBOD units and
mirror between them. In this way if a chassis goes
Hi Ged;
At the moment ZFS is not a shared file system nor a paralell file system.
However lustre integration which will take some time will provide parallel
file system abilities. I am unsure if lustre at the moment supports
redundancy between storage nodes (it was on the road map)
But ZFS
