From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: Reiserfs with Samba vs NetApp Filer Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 16:29:50 -0600 Message-ID: <20021012222950.GK3045@clusterfs.com> References: <200210121052.22603.bofh@coker.com.au> <20021012150028.G14731@vestdata.no> <200210121600.39712.bofh@coker.com.au> <3DA89A37.2070801@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DA89A37.2070801@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: Russell Coker , Ragnar =?unknown-8bit?Q?Kj=F8rstad?= , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Oct 13, 2002 01:55 +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > Someday not too long from now, it will look like one filesystem even > though it is in multiple cases. Whether that is in reiser5 or reiser6 > depends on what sponsors fund first. Hans, you should take a look at Lustre - www.lustre.org. We are basically already developing what you are suggesting - a distributed filesystem which is built atop two or more local filesystems. The aggregate throughput of N lustre storage servers is basically N times the throughput of a single server (clients communicate directly with the storage targets, so the cross-sectional bandwidth in perfectly scalable on a switched network). Like Intermezzo, Lustre can be stacked on top of journaling local filesystems, so it would be possible to use reiserfs for both the metadata and storage targets. We are deploying on a 1000-node cluster early next year, and expect total throughput around 4GB/s (we have already made a limited test at 1.4GB/s) with 90TB of storage - on a 2.4 kernel. Because we are using multiple separate filesystems, we are not hampered by the 2TB block device limit, and we get all sorts of parallelisms that are not possible with a single large server. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/