[clug-talk] Storage Area Networks - Network attached Storage
khangyi at shaw.ca
Fri Dec 3 11:31:55 PST 2004
On December 3, 2004 11:11, J. Rafael Sánchez wrote:
> Kevin Anderson wrote:
> > On Friday 03 December 2004 09:47, "J. Rafael Sánchez" wrote:
> >>I thank you all for your comments. If I were to buy a couple of external
> >>firewire/sata/ide/raid cases with around 2TB capacity each, and attach
> >>them to one or two of my existing [fastest] servers, would I be getting
> >>a comparable solution?
> > Personally, if I was setting up a situation where several servers
> > depended on 1 set of disks, I would want an OS that doesn't do anything
> > except serve up those disks. So I'd connect the array to a separate box
> > with nothing really running except the NFS Server. That would greatly
> > reduce the liklihood of anything crashing.
> >>Also, we produce, not only lot's of data, but files that have started to
> >>reach beyond the 2Gb threshold, an issued which I'm already having some
> >>challenges with. It becomes a challenge to move them around. Would you
> >>care to comment on that?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
> > I'm a huge fan of Reiser. That's the direction I'd go in.
> Isn't Reiser for small files? I looked at the table from that link, and
> it says that "max file size" for ext3 is 16GB-2TB, why is it that RH9
> cannot handle them. Is it something I'm not doing right when I configure
> my servers? I thought large file system was enabled.
I think Rh9 is too old for this ... I run mdk9.1 and had no problem with files
the 10Gbytes ballmark. A 10Gig tar.gz file with no problem on ext3, now, i
dont know about zip, gzip works fine creating and unpacking them. Also you
can split the files to manageable chunks for transfer to fs that can not
handle 2G+ filesizes. I will run tests with nfs, but from where it stands,
there should be NO problem, nfs is a networking protocol, Now if you can ftp
the file and download it via web, the the only problem is the receiving end,
and it's ability to actually write beyond 2G.
> >>Has anyone had to deal with a similar situation and, if I may ask, how
> >>do you deal with it? I recently put a 64bit system together... and
> >>installed FC3 on it...I've had some problems with it already, but that's
> >>another complete different topic of discussion...
> > If you're running a production system, I wouldn't do it on a
> > semi-supported distro. This isn't really meant as a dig, but the truth
I will have to very strongly disagree here, calling a community supported
distro semi supported would be greatly inaccurate. It would also degrade the
open-source community's ability in regard to producing code and supporting
it. Redhat relies a great deal on the community to provide what they provide
for you (the end user) as support, however, the community is also open (very
open) for requests from you, the end user. Redhat does not own the community,
you can use it too.
I can hardly see a enable large file support option in a kernel compile setup
as being a major issue. you need a 2.6 kernel to do this properly (is large
file support) Rh9 is 2.4.
> > is that FC is there to get people started using Red Hat, and you're in
> > Red Hat territory, not FC's. I suspect you'd see alot of support
> > messages which might indicate something along those lines from a
> > quasi-commercial distro. This is based on support given for the free
> > version of smoothwall.
> > In my first paragraph, I suggested an NFS server. I stand by that
> > comment, but I'm not certain on the file size limits that NFS would
> > handle. So test that before listening to me. :) Unless someone else
> > can comment.
I will set up my network, i had to take it apart for the meeting :-) then i
will create a large file and scoop it across the network, via nfs and see
what goes. I expect it to go very smoothly, and i also expect it to take a
LONG time :-)
> > Also note that there can be problems beyond the ones in the FS. You may
> > find that things like zip will die on files beyond the 2TB size range.
> Yeah that's right.
> > Kev.
and a note, it is not just the fs, it is also the fs utils. They also have to
be able to handle them very large files.
More information about the clug-talk