Skip to main content

samba - Shared Disk in modern data center (SAN, virtualization, etc)



I'm a developer...treading here on foreign terrain. Please pardon any naivete.




I work on an application that stores data both in a database and the filesystem.



Context: Clustering and Network Shares



In the past when we ran the application clustered (i.e. multiple application servers fronting the data), we have handled the filesystem as follows:




  • Node A : shares the "data directory " (via samba or nfs)

  • Nodes B,C,D, etc: mounts the "network share" and uses that at its "data directory"




Reduced "disk speed" for nodes B,C,D was suboptimal, but not a big problem.



Also note: The application uses its own file locking mechanism. Concurrent writes are not a problem.



The Questions




  • So in a modern data center fibre-channel connects servers to SANS, what's the best way to share a "hunk of disk" amongst several servers ?



  • Is such 'disk sharing' widely used?


  • Any OS-specific concerns ("works on linux, but not available on Windows")


  • Any caveats? Hard to configure, unreliable, etc?




I have heard a lot of "we can't do that" from our sysadmins ..which finally when I asked more details, they said "well, technically it's possible, but it's not how we do it here"



thanks in advance,



Update: Thanks for the answers. (They were all good: i had to pick one. Sorry if it wasn't yours) Just as I had (somewhat) expected: my hopes that you could simply attach NTFS or XFS or whatever "regular" filesystem to the same 'hunk of 'disk' proved naive. Clustered filesystem is the ticket. And fancy filesystems aren't on our hosting team's top priorities).



Answer




"well, technically it's possible, but it's not how we do it here"




That sounds quite a lot like what I regularly tell developers ;)



From an enterprise operational perspective you want as much as possible that applications use standard repeatable solutions. If your application doesn't need/warrant special treatment you're not going to get it. Non-standard solutions require specialised skills, more expensive or simply more equipment and if it's "state-of-the-art" failures are often catastrophic as well.



For many applications a (highly available) file share is still a very suitable and commonly deployed solution.




Common HA alternate solutions to using a file-share are:




  • Do not store files on file-systems but use a highly available database and store them as BLOB's instead. A very common approach. Often you already need a database anyway and this makes application servers almost stateless, solves a lot of locking, replication, HA, consistency and access problems by shifting them to the database layer, where a lot of those problems are old news, well understood and solved. It can be expensive to maintain though once you reach (a sizeable fraction of) the petabyte range.


  • A proper clustered file-system, that allows concurrent read-write block-level access to your shared storage over Fiber Channel or iSCSI. Enterprise storage arrays tend to be pretty expensive but this can scale very well. Often the cluster file system requires (expensive) licensing for each node for the cluster FS software. Also quite common in enterprise environments for specialised applications.


  • Use a distributed object store. This is the more open source solution, with low-end commodity hardware, creating redundancy and scalability in the software. This is a common "cloud" approach.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able