Re: Fwd: [ILUG] iSCSI & Shared Storage Question right..but considering you're going to place your storage on a critical 
device you would want to ensure you have high availability and 
scalability. Although you could possibly configure a regular box for 
this, surely dedicated storage devices are designed for this and should 
come with redundant power, CPU's, HBA's etc.. as well as management 
software. So..if you want to have shared storage and use it for critical 
applications, what entry level storage solutions have others tried and 
tested with GFS.
/KB

John Moylan wrote:
> You could theoretically use any sort of storage and use it as an iscsi
> target with GFS. I think there is a supported iscsi target in
> RH/CENTOS 5.1 . There wasn't any in 5 and the one from sourceforge
> would cause the occasional lock issue.
>
> J
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 12:42 PM, Kevin Brennan  wrote:
>   
>> I know for GFS you can use GNDB and access local disks but I guess to
>> achieve reasonable performance you would need to connect a SAN. Anyone
>> have experiences of setting up a cost effective SAN for GFS without
>> compromising too much on performance and scalability ? How much ?
>> /KB
>>
>>
>> John Moylan wrote:
>>     
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: John Moylan 
>>> Date: Nov 15, 2007 11:33 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ILUG] iSCSI & Shared Storage Question
>>> To: evhq@clubi.ie, evhq@jakma.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to be some confusion here bout GFS
>>>
>>> I disagree with Paul about veering off of paths etc. GFS serves a
>>> valid purpose and is enterprise ready and well integrated into the
>>> Redhat/Centos Stack.
>>>
>>> It is not an alternative to NFS, NFS would normally be run ontop of
>>> GFS. GFS just handles concurrency for reads/writes. You still have to
>>> replicate your data - normally using whatever came with your SAN or
>>> something like Veritas's continuous access system.
>>>
>>> CLVM won't allow you to stripe accross SAN's in a fabic it just
>>> applies LVM changes the nodes in your SAN that get picked up on by all
>>> of the attached hosts.
>>>
>>> Good starting point (the redhat Cluster NFS cookbook)
>>> http://sources.redhat.com/cluster/doc/nfscookbook.pdf .
>>>
>>> My previous advice stands, set up a lab and break and fix the system
>>> until you know it's strengths and weaknesses and are comfortable with
>>> the idea of having to support it if something goes wrong - same goes
>>> for any system though. - non clustered NFS included.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2007 12:09 AM,   wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, evhq@clubi.ie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> NFS + rsync of your data to a backup NFS server, with manual failover is a
>>>>> really safe bet and will take very little time to setup and maintain..
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Oh, one thing to bear in mind that those distributed, multi-node FSes
>>>> don't necessarily provide redundancy (distributed redundancy isn't
>>>> entirely trivial).
>>>>
>>>> NFS and an automounter can provide the same effect (a consistent
>>>> namespace to a bunch of files spread across different machines).
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Paul Jakma      evhq@clubi.ie   evhq@jakma.org  Key ID: 64A2FF6A
>>>> Fortune:
>>>> NEWS FLASH!!
>>>> Today the East German pole-vault champion became the West German pole-vault
>>>> champion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Irish Linux Users' Group mailing list
>>>> About this list : http://mail.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug
>>>> Who we are : http://www.linux.ie/
>>>> Where we are : http://www.linux.ie/map/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>> --
>>
>> Irish Linux Users' Group mailing list
>> About this list : http://mail.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug
>> Who we are : http://www.linux.ie/
>> Where we are : http://www.linux.ie/map/
>>
>>
>>     
>
>


