CXFS implementation? - SGI

This is a discussion on CXFS implementation? - SGI ; Hiya, Has anyone implemented (implementing, been involved in an implementation of) CXFS? I'd like to chat (offline) about the details - size of installation, storage, why you chose CXFS, how the implementation went. Technical details, not management fluff. Partially for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: CXFS implementation?

  1. CXFS implementation?

    Hiya,

    Has anyone implemented (implementing, been involved in an
    implementation of) CXFS?

    I'd like to chat (offline) about the details - size of installation,
    storage, why you chose CXFS, how the implementation went. Technical
    details, not management fluff.

    Partially for my own curiosity, and partially because I have a client
    where CXFS may possibly be a solution.

    I'm more than happy to sign an NDA or keep schtum about details if
    needed.

    Thanks,
    TOM

  2. Re: CXFS implementation?

    In article <858768d8.0402270724.226a9077@posting.google.com>,
    Tom Kranz wrote:
    :Has anyone implemented (implementing, been involved in an
    :implementation of) CXFS?

    We had a few teething problems in getting up-to-date software versions
    and patches. The software is a lot more stable now than it was at first.

    Make sure you use distinct "heartbeat" interfaces instead of trying
    to carry the heartbeat on the common internet connections.

    Make sure you have the latest CXFS patches.

    Bringing a Windows node into the mix can be tricky; we gave up on it
    before, have since discovered a known software incompatability, but have
    not had time to get back to it.

    One thing we found was that people really didn't appreciate CXFS as
    much as we had hoped. It's there, it works, but it's just another
    technological miracle, and what have you done for us in the last half
    hour? Spoiled by Novell, I guess ;-)

    Another thing: make sure you have a fairly dedicated metadata server
    with gobs of memory. And for any given filesystem, fsdump must only
    be run on the filesystem's metadata server.


    CXFS is a good opportunity to re-organize how various departments
    exchange information, and to re-organize how data is managed. But if
    there isn't already a heartfelt need for that reorganization in the
    company, then CXFS probably won't make a lot of difference to how
    people do business.
    --
    IMT made the sky
    Fall.

  3. Re: CXFS implementation?

    roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in message news:...
    > In article <858768d8.0402270724.226a9077@posting.google.com>,
    > Tom Kranz wrote:
    > :Has anyone implemented (implementing, been involved in an
    > :implementation of) CXFS?
    >
    > We had a few teething problems in getting up-to-date software versions
    > and patches. The software is a lot more stable now than it was at first.


    Hear, hear. Performance, as well, has dramatically improved post
    6.5.20.

    >
    > Make sure you use distinct "heartbeat" interfaces instead of trying
    > to carry the heartbeat on the common internet connections.


    I believe that support for multiple heartbeat networks is coming soon,
    if not already there. Ensure the heartbeat network shares no
    components with the public client network. You *must* have a full
    duplex connection.

    >
    > Make sure you have the latest CXFS patches.
    >


    There are still a number of outstanding issues, not least relocation
    to a busy client node (important in a 2 node Failsafe cluster)

    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...i/srch15@CXFS%
    20relocation/0650/bks/SGI_Admin/books/CXFS_AG/sgi_html/ch11.html#IG2366949915

    Talk to SGI as well about any outstanding issues that might bite you.
    It might pay to get a consultant in for a day or two depending on the
    complexity of the proposed setup.


    > Bringing a Windows node into the mix can be tricky; we gave up on it
    > before, have since discovered a known software incompatability, but have
    > not had time to get back to it.
    >
    > One thing we found was that people really didn't appreciate CXFS as
    > much as we had hoped. It's there, it works, but it's just another
    > technological miracle, and what have you done for us in the last half
    > hour? Spoiled by Novell, I guess ;-)
    >
    > Another thing: make sure you have a fairly dedicated metadata server
    > with gobs of memory. And for any given filesystem, fsdump must only
    > be run on the filesystem's metadata server.
    >
    >
    > CXFS is a good opportunity to re-organize how various departments
    > exchange information, and to re-organize how data is managed. But if
    > there isn't already a heartfelt need for that reorganization in the
    > company, then CXFS probably won't make a lot of difference to how
    > people do business.




    Before even thinking of CXFS look closely at your applications.
    You'll only reap the benefits of CXFS if your application isn't too
    meta-data intensive. Tools like par/strace/truss can help here. That
    said, things are much better in later Irix releases than they were.


    Regards,
    Andy

+ Reply to Thread