Mailing List Archive
tlug.jp Mailing List tlug archive tlug Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:47:44 +0900
- From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephenjturnbull@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- References: <CAAhy3dsGd-05-PZsO1_rOzLmmkFJJwwnKZt5Bc96+kNrG4hhxA@mail.gmail.com> <YUbpc+W897zMrOgz@fluxcoil.net> <611fd353-cde3-0ae7-0dbf-e1b54dc60174@gmail.com> <YUe1xe9qiMe7ZJSb@fluxcoil.net> <CAAhy3dv55SE0b+0YR35Qpzbgu4OW7VgBNoxb24aEzHg9McM+bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Raymond Wan quotes Christian Horn: > > a) NFS server > > b) NFS server, clustered: 2 systems, cluster like pacemaker, > > c) Ceph: all of the systems have a bit local storage, i.e. There's a minor file system from Carnegie-Mellon U called Coda which has the following characteristics: 1) Files are the unit of storage. 2) Files are grouped into volumes, which are the unit of replication. 3) Volumes are stored on servers, and may be replicated. 4) The client is a cache which downloads and uploads files (not volumes) on demand. 5) The client presents POSIX file semantics to the applications via a kernel extension (module on Linux, kext on MacOS, whatever on Windows). Caveats: a) Large files are limited to the size of the cache (and if you need to use multiple "large" files, cache thrash is prohibitive, see b). b) open() takes a long time for large files not in cache, as the whole file must be cached before any reads or writes are allowed. IIRC up to about 1MB, there was no perceptible difference between NFS and Coda, bigger than that Coda performance gradually degraded for infrequently used files. But if you know what files were needed in advance, you can pre-cache them, and then you get local filesystem performance for all files up to the cache size limit. c) Read concurrency with multiple clients is wonderful, write concurrency is prohibitively slow. I was really happy with it for certain personal applications ($HOME, $GITDIRs) until MacOS made some major change to its kernel module interface, and the Mac kernel module stopped building. I haven't used it in some years, but I'm still on the mailing list and there's a trickle of maintenance going on. The code base has been very stable (except for the kernel modules) for a decade. I'm not sure if the FUSE module ever became stable, I should look into that. Steve
- References:
- [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- From: Raymond Wan
- Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- From: Christian Horn
- Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- From: Raymond Wan
- Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- From: Christian Horn
- Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- From: Raymond Wan
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- Next by Date: Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- Previous by thread: Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- Next by thread: Re: [tlug] Help with fsck and ocfs2 (or even ext4?)...
- Index(es):