GFS (was Re: [Beowulf] High Performance for Large Database)
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Laurence Liew laurenceliew at yahoo.com.sgTue Nov 16 00:52:32 PST 2004
- Previous message: GFS (was Re: [Beowulf] High Performance for Large Database)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi, Yes. We have tested GNBD a while back... it however adds a performance penalty.. but it is a suitable method instead of SAN. Laurence Chris Samuel wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:26 am, Laurence Liew wrote: > > >>BTW, GFS was built for enterprise and not specifically for HPC... the >>use of SAN (all nodes need to be connected to a single SAN storage).. >>may be a bottleneck... > > > You don't actually need to go through a SAN, you can export the devices via > GNBD instead and access them over an IP network. > > In fact if the devices in the back end are on a SAN then you can export the > devices from multiple serves via GNBD and the clients can write to multiple > servers at the same time. > > Caveat: This is just from reading the docs though, not from experience! :-) > > Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: laurenceliew.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 150 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20041116/ac169fcf/laurenceliew.vcf
- Previous message: GFS (was Re: [Beowulf] High Performance for Large Database)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: torus versus (fat) tree topologies
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
