Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system? It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes. Any recommendations? Markus
Am 2012-11-12 21:39, schrieb elias humbolt:
Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system?
It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes.
Any recommendations?
Yes, first of all: If it is a *production* system, this is, something you earn money with: Rent a server in a data center. It is their job to care about redundancies. If it is *not* a "production system", this is, you are basically doing this for fun, you might wanna check out ceph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph although I admit I never used it myself. greetings, Zacharias
Ceph, as far as the specs are concerned, is exactly what I need. But I do not really believe in its reliability, as I do not believe in the professionality of its underlaying FS btrfs. I am on there mailinglist and what I read is not so promising. Concerning the "productivity" of my system. Yes, it is production. I rent a full rack at a datacenter and I have to care for storage myself. I however would prefer a scalable system based on cheap commodity hardware over installing an expensive enterprise SAN solution. So long, Markus On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Zacharias <mail@sacharja.eu> wrote:
Am 2012-11-12 21:39, schrieb elias humbolt:
Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system?
It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes.
Any recommendations?
Yes, first of all:
If it is a *production* system, this is, something you earn money with: Rent a server in a data center. It is their job to care about redundancies.
If it is *not* a "production system", this is, you are basically doing this for fun, you might wanna check out ceph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph although I admit I never used it myself.
greetings, Zacharias
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
If you read the ceph mailinglist you also should know that you can use virtually any FS you wan't and are not bound to btrfs, btrfs is only suggested. And I don't think you mean btrfs is unprofessional ... but at the moment its still signed as 'experimental' by the devs. Still, my experience is that it's very reliable as I never had failures within the last 2 years on several machines. Regards, g On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Markus Kienast <elias1884@gmail.com> wrote:
Ceph, as far as the specs are concerned, is exactly what I need. But I do not really believe in its reliability, as I do not believe in the professionality of its underlaying FS btrfs. I am on there mailinglist and what I read is not so promising.
Concerning the "productivity" of my system. Yes, it is production. I rent a full rack at a datacenter and I have to care for storage myself. I however would prefer a scalable system based on cheap commodity hardware over installing an expensive enterprise SAN solution.
So long, Markus
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Zacharias <mail@sacharja.eu> wrote:
Am 2012-11-12 21:39, schrieb elias humbolt:
Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system?
It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes.
Any recommendations?
Yes, first of all:
If it is a *production* system, this is, something you earn money with: Rent a server in a data center. It is their job to care about redundancies.
If it is *not* a "production system", this is, you are basically doing this for fun, you might wanna check out ceph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph although I admit I never used it myself.
greetings, Zacharias
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
The implementation of btrfs has been analyzed by some RedHat dev some time ago. And he concluded, that btrfs says it is following certain concepts of FS design, but actually does not strictly follow these concepts and diverts from them on impulse. These diversions have not been scientifically tested and WILL lead to unexpected behavior and unpredictability. One of which is the inability to correctly predict free space in the FS, if I remember right. I am referring to that paper, when I say "unprofessional". This analysis seems to have been ignored in the press mostly, which does not surprise me, for the knowledge level needed to actually understand, the point the guy is trying to make. In short he says, by doing what btrfs devs are doing, they will never get out of the experimental state, as some unpredictable bullshit will pop up until worlds end. And if you look, how long it has been around and how many distributions use it as their default FS today (although its features are clearly everything we ever wanted), this prediction seems about right. Cheers, Markus On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, gaelic <gaelic@luchmhor.net> wrote:
If you read the ceph mailinglist you also should know that you can use virtually any FS you wan't and are not bound to btrfs, btrfs is only suggested. And I don't think you mean btrfs is unprofessional ... but at the moment its still signed as 'experimental' by the devs. Still, my experience is that it's very reliable as I never had failures within the last 2 years on several machines.
Regards,
g
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Markus Kienast <elias1884@gmail.com> wrote:
Ceph, as far as the specs are concerned, is exactly what I need. But I do not really believe in its reliability, as I do not believe in the professionality of its underlaying FS btrfs. I am on there mailinglist and what I read is not so promising.
Concerning the "productivity" of my system. Yes, it is production. I rent a full rack at a datacenter and I have to care for storage myself. I however would prefer a scalable system based on cheap commodity hardware over installing an expensive enterprise SAN solution.
So long, Markus
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Zacharias <mail@sacharja.eu> wrote:
Am 2012-11-12 21:39, schrieb elias humbolt:
Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system?
It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes.
Any recommendations?
Yes, first of all:
If it is a *production* system, this is, something you earn money with: Rent a server in a data center. It is their job to care about redundancies.
If it is *not* a "production system", this is, you are basically doing this for fun, you might wanna check out ceph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph although I admit I never used it myself.
greetings, Zacharias
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
Ah, that's why all major distributions are including btrfs at least as a possibility, if not as default nowadays. Surprisingly also RedHat. No word from Linus, etc. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Markus Kienast <elias1884@gmail.com> wrote:
The implementation of btrfs has been analyzed by some RedHat dev some time ago. And he concluded, that btrfs says it is following certain concepts of FS design, but actually does not strictly follow these concepts and diverts from them on impulse. These diversions have not been scientifically tested and WILL lead to unexpected behavior and unpredictability.
One of which is the inability to correctly predict free space in the FS, if I remember right.
I am referring to that paper, when I say "unprofessional". This analysis seems to have been ignored in the press mostly, which does not surprise me, for the knowledge level needed to actually understand, the point the guy is trying to make.
In short he says, by doing what btrfs devs are doing, they will never get out of the experimental state, as some unpredictable bullshit will pop up until worlds end. And if you look, how long it has been around and how many distributions use it as their default FS today (although its features are clearly everything we ever wanted), this prediction seems about right.
Cheers, Markus
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM, gaelic <gaelic@luchmhor.net> wrote:
If you read the ceph mailinglist you also should know that you can use virtually any FS you wan't and are not bound to btrfs, btrfs is only suggested. And I don't think you mean btrfs is unprofessional ... but at the moment its still signed as 'experimental' by the devs. Still, my experience is that it's very reliable as I never had failures within the last 2 years on several machines.
Regards,
g
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Markus Kienast <elias1884@gmail.com> wrote:
Ceph, as far as the specs are concerned, is exactly what I need. But I do not really believe in its reliability, as I do not believe in the professionality of its underlaying FS btrfs. I am on there mailinglist and what I read is not so promising.
Concerning the "productivity" of my system. Yes, it is production. I rent a full rack at a datacenter and I have to care for storage myself. I however would prefer a scalable system based on cheap commodity hardware over installing an expensive enterprise SAN solution.
So long, Markus
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Zacharias <mail@sacharja.eu> wrote:
Am 2012-11-12 21:39, schrieb elias humbolt:
Can anybody recommend a redundant replicated storage solution stable enough to act as basis of production system?
It will be used to store and serve video data to the web and to transcoding nodes.
Any recommendations?
Yes, first of all:
If it is a *production* system, this is, something you earn money with: Rent a server in a data center. It is their job to care about redundancies.
If it is *not* a "production system", this is, you are basically doing this for fun, you might wanna check out ceph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceph although I admit I never used it myself.
greetings, Zacharias
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
_______________________________________________ Metalab mailing list Metalab@lists.metalab.at https://lists.metalab.at/mailman/listinfo/metalab
Teilnehmer (4)
-
elias humbolt -
gaelic -
Markus Kienast
-
Zacharias