|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > December 2004 > Storage Replication over WAN with Linux
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Storage Replication over WAN with Linux
|
|
| paulchoi@cal.berkeley.edu 2004-11-29, 5:45 pm |
| Hi,
Sorry if this question is not new. My company is considering having a
co-location facility in the near future, and this is the first time
we're considering a non-Open Source project as a solution. (We were
able to get by with NFS, but not any more...)
We need to be able to replicate storage to local hosts as well as over
WAN to a remote host. The requirements are:
1) Have multiple hosts share a volume. (Like GFS does)
2) Have the filesystem write to distributed physical volumes. (Like
GFS...)
3) Be able to write to a remote filesystem via IP.
4) If WAN goes down, any changes to the remote filesystem is
synchronized, and changes to the local filesystem is synchronized to
the remote filesystem upon recovery of WAN.
#3 and #4 present a major problem for us at this point. Otherwise,
something like GFS would have been ideal. If you have any ideas, it'd
be really, really (Really!) appreciated. We are a Dell, Debian Linux,
Apple Xserve RAID shop, and quite unfamiliar with commercial
solutions...
---------------------
Paul Choi
Systems Administrator
iParadimgs, LLC
| |
| Faeandar 2004-11-29, 8:45 pm |
| On 29 Nov 2004 16:16:57 -0800, pchoi@iparadigms.com
(paulchoi@cal.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Sorry if this question is not new. My company is considering having a
>co-location facility in the near future, and this is the first time
>we're considering a non-Open Source project as a solution. (We were
>able to get by with NFS, but not any more...)
>
>We need to be able to replicate storage to local hosts as well as over
>WAN to a remote host. The requirements are:
>
>1) Have multiple hosts share a volume. (Like GFS does)
>2) Have the filesystem write to distributed physical volumes. (Like
>GFS...)
>3) Be able to write to a remote filesystem via IP.
>4) If WAN goes down, any changes to the remote filesystem is
>synchronized, and changes to the local filesystem is synchronized to
>the remote filesystem upon recovery of WAN.
>
>#3 and #4 present a major problem for us at this point. Otherwise,
>something like GFS would have been ideal. If you have any ideas, it'd
>be really, really (Really!) appreciated. We are a Dell, Debian Linux,
>Apple Xserve RAID shop, and quite unfamiliar with commercial
>solutions...
>
>
>---------------------
>Paul Choi
>Systems Administrator
>iParadimgs, LLC
Budget considerations? There are a few solutions out there.
Generally the problem with what you're trying to do is performance.
For remote sync to be guarenteed the data has to be written and
confirmed *before* a response is sent back to the client. This can be
horribly slow depending on the WAN, but if those are the requirements
then those are the requirements.
If they aren't really the requirements then more options open up to
you, and at generally lower costs.
~F
| |
| Frank Foss 2004-12-01, 2:45 am |
| Call your local Veritas rep.
Check into Veritas Storage Foundation, and Veritas Cluster Server.
It's a pretty impressive solution. At a certain price.
"paulchoi@cal.berkeley.edu" <pchoi@iparadigms.com> wrote in message
news:4b4c183.0411291616.b920787@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this question is not new. My company is considering having a
> co-location facility in the near future, and this is the first time
> we're considering a non-Open Source project as a solution. (We were
> able to get by with NFS, but not any more...)
>
> We need to be able to replicate storage to local hosts as well as over
> WAN to a remote host. The requirements are:
>
> 1) Have multiple hosts share a volume. (Like GFS does)
> 2) Have the filesystem write to distributed physical volumes. (Like
> GFS...)
> 3) Be able to write to a remote filesystem via IP.
> 4) If WAN goes down, any changes to the remote filesystem is
> synchronized, and changes to the local filesystem is synchronized to
> the remote filesystem upon recovery of WAN.
>
> #3 and #4 present a major problem for us at this point. Otherwise,
> something like GFS would have been ideal. If you have any ideas, it'd
> be really, really (Really!) appreciated. We are a Dell, Debian Linux,
> Apple Xserve RAID shop, and quite unfamiliar with commercial
> solutions...
>
>
> ---------------------
> Paul Choi
> Systems Administrator
> iParadimgs, LLC
|
|
|
|
|