Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID
-
@Dashrender 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:
@NetworkNerd said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:
Wouldn't a technology like vSAN be considered software RAID in some form? It's just not enabled in ESXi by default unless you buy the license.
vSAN, from talking with some VMWare engineers, is really meant to be handled as RAIN. You don't care about the individual underlying hardware components because each individual node is replicating to all the other nodes.
And the drives are independent.
How are the drives configured in a RAIN setup? as JBOD?
To the host system, yes.
Does the RAIN setup (aka software managing the storage) handle the distribution of data over the drives?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2579611/data-center/rain-explained.html
And let's not forget Erasure Coding to really understand what's going on under the hood of a RAIN system.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/reed-solomon/Does it work more or less like RAID 0 in the hopes of getting the best speed/performance?
If you really want it to, it could.
-
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.
-
@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.
Ok that makes sense.. thanks.
-
@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?
-
@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
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
