Re: [9fans] ceph

[Roman V Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>]

On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 19:56 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> >  2. do we have anybody successfully managing that much storage that is
> >     also spread across the nodes? And if so, what's the best practices
> >     out there to make the client not worry about where does the storage
> >     actually come from (IOW, any kind of proxying of I/O, etc)
>
> Google?

By "we" I mostly meant this community, but even if we don't focus on
9fans, Google is a non-example. They have no clients for this filesystem
per-se.

> >> The request: for each of the (lots of) compute nodes, have them mount
> >> over 9p to, say 100x fewer io nodes, each of those to run lustre.
> >
> > Sorry for being dense, but what exactly is going to be accomplished
> > by proxying I/O in such a way?
>
> it makes the unscalable distributed lock manager and other such stuff
> work, because you stop asking it to scale.

So strictly speaking you are not really using 9P as a filesystem
protocol, but rather as a convenient way for doing RPC, right?

Thanks,
Roman.