ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID

    IT Discussion
    raid hardware raid it business hot swap blind swap storage
    6
    25
    5.6k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • dafyreD
      dafyre @scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

      The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

      Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

      travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • travisdh1T
        travisdh1 @dafyre
        last edited by

        @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

        @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

        The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

        Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

        Gluster and Swift

        coliverC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • coliverC
          coliver @travisdh1
          last edited by

          @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

          @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

          @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

          The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

          Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

          Gluster and Swift

          I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @coliver
            last edited by

            @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

            @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

            @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

            @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

            The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

            Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

            Gluster and Swift

            I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

            Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

            coliverC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • coliverC
              coliver @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

              @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

              @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

              @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

              @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

              The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

              Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

              Gluster and Swift

              I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

              Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

              Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @coliver
                last edited by

                @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

                Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

                Gluster and Swift

                I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

                Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

                Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

                Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

                coliverC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • coliverC
                  coliver @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                  The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

                  Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

                  Gluster and Swift

                  I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

                  Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

                  Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

                  Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

                  Ah looks like it went open source in 2010.

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @coliver
                    last edited by

                    @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                    The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

                    Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

                    Gluster and Swift

                    I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

                    Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

                    Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

                    Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

                    Ah looks like it went open source in 2010.

                    Oh cool, so I remember things well then. I'm just out of date. Gluster probably forced their hand, why would anyone consider Lustre when it was closed source? The answer was probably... they wouldn't and didn't.

                    coliverC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • coliverC
                      coliver @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                      The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

                      Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

                      Gluster and Swift

                      I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

                      Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

                      Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

                      Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

                      Ah looks like it went open source in 2010.

                      Oh cool, so I remember things well then. I'm just out of date. Gluster probably forced their hand, why would anyone consider Lustre when it was closed source? The answer was probably... they wouldn't and didn't.

                      Yep, I'd assume that was the case. Especially when it is a such a specific, and at the time, niche market.

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @coliver
                        last edited by

                        @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        @scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

                        The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

                        Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

                        Gluster and Swift

                        I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

                        Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

                        Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

                        Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

                        Ah looks like it went open source in 2010.

                        Oh cool, so I remember things well then. I'm just out of date. Gluster probably forced their hand, why would anyone consider Lustre when it was closed source? The answer was probably... they wouldn't and didn't.

                        Yep, I'd assume that was the case. Especially when it is a such a specific, and at the time, niche market.

                        And when Gluster went directly after them, even in name.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        • 2 / 2
                        • First post
                          Last post