From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HACmj-000157-Jr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:09:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l0PM8skl001588; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:08:54 GMT Received: from smtp.kinex.net (smtp.kinex.net [207.42.174.24]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0PM7239031831 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:07:02 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.kinex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548264007E9 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.kinex.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.kinex.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08375-03 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.squishychicken.com (unknown [69.68.239.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.kinex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0871D4007DA for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by home.squishychicken.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:07:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:07:10 -0500 From: Sean Cook To: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] SAN Clustered Filesystem Message-ID: <20070125220710.GA30675@gandalf.squishychicken.com> References: <45B90C20.4060305@wisc.edu> <20070125201537.GA30523@gandalf.squishychicken.com> <45B928B8.8010905@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-server@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45B928B8.8010905@gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.17-gentoo-r8 i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kinex.net X-Archives-Salt: 6093d02c-a30c-4d77-91a2-d5b921a3868c X-Archives-Hash: 8cb2b007b5240ac80cb5dd98ea1ce6b7 Both are example of potential shared filesystems... GFS is even pitched as a low cost alternative to a SAN or NAS (see redhats docs). I would agree that the technologies are vastly different. GFS is a clustering Filesystem, where as iSCSI is a block level device similar to FC and FCAL. Regards, Sean On 25-Jan-2007, paul k?lle wrote: > Sean Cook schrieb: > > I would actually spend a little more and start looking at iSCSI for attached > > storage. You can generally pickup some decent chassis on ebay for not a lot > > of change and it gives you a lot more flexibility. > > > > GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where > > near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage. > Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level > protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does... > > sorry, noob wrt above > Paul > -- > gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list > -- gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list