Redundant Data storage solutions (Data clusters?)
cyberjacob at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 20:28:25 UTC 2010
a hardware based raid 5 is your best bet, it joins the storage sizes of all
but one of the disks and can suffer a single disk failuer
On 13 October 2010 20:24, Lamp Zy <lampzy at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm looking for is suggestions, best practices, success stories or
> anything that will point me in the right direction.
> I realize that our requirements are the same as 90% of the companies out
> there but the "Redundancy" part is where I stumbled upon.
> We are hosting user images that are less then 1MB in size. Images are
> small and the processing we are doing on them is not I/O intensive so
> there is no need for high performance hardware or high network speeds.
> File systems are exported to the application servers over NFS.
> All we need is a reliable storage solution that works over NFS (NAS).
> It is expected that our storage needs will grow to about 50+ TB within 5
> One of the requirements is redundancy. If one storage unit fails then
> another should pick up with no interruption. Also it needs to be
> scalable. At this point we can not invest in all 50TB storage so we need
> to be able to add more storage easily as needed.
> We are about to go with gluster (gluster.org). It is a Data Cluster
> solution where one can add systems with DAS in pairs. Each pair can be
> configured to simulate RAID1 (if I understand correctly). Looks good...
> on paper at least. My concerns are that they use their own glusterFS
> which probably relies on ext3 or zfs. Also you can use NFS but it's
> recommended to use their client daemon instead and so on.
> Any recommendation about a solution or suggestions are highly appreciated.
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-users