If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question on partitioning a storage array
Hello,
please don't bash me if I ask stupid things. I am only an "acting admin". The situation is as follows: a storage box (3TB) configured as RAID5. One volume, one LUN. An FC switch. Three servers. I would not like to use (for now) a clustering FS. I am reluctant to configure / reconfigure the storage. I know too little of these things. Are the following schemas allowed: 1) connect the switch using FC to each of the servers, and then create three partitions (e.g. with parted or fdisk). Then mount at each of the servers only its own partition. Will that work reliably? In theory, the switch gives block level access to the shared device; the servers should not access anything simultaniously, and hence no data inconsitency should occur. 2) the same, but use a LVM -- create logical partitions, and let the three servers use each its own logical partition. Again, sorry if the question is trivial or just plain stupid. j. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question on partitioning a storage array
January Weiner wrote:
Hello, please don't bash me if I ask stupid things. I am only an "acting admin". The situation is as follows: a storage box (3TB) configured as RAID5. One volume, one LUN. An FC switch. Three servers. I would not like to use (for now) a clustering FS. I am reluctant to configure / reconfigure the storage. I know too little of these things. Are the following schemas allowed: 1) connect the switch using FC to each of the servers, and then create three partitions (e.g. with parted or fdisk). Then mount at each of the servers only its own partition. Will that work reliably? In theory, the switch gives block level access to the shared device; the servers should not access anything simultaniously, and hence no data inconsitency should occur. 2) the same, but use a LVM -- create logical partitions, and let the three servers use each its own logical partition. Again, sorry if the question is trivial or just plain stupid. j. I'd suggest not doing this. Three hosts sharing one partition table sounds like disaster. Say you reinstall the first host with the partition table. what happens to the other machines? divide the 3TB as needed into three luns. zone the luns to the correct hosts. Then there's no way at all they can botch up data on another machine. Also, there's no reason to present data to a host that it doesn't need to access anyways. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question on partitioning a storage array
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:57:26 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote: January Weiner wrote: Hello, please don't bash me if I ask stupid things. I am only an "acting admin". The situation is as follows: a storage box (3TB) configured as RAID5. One volume, one LUN. An FC switch. Three servers. I would not like to use (for now) a clustering FS. I am reluctant to configure / reconfigure the storage. I know too little of these things. Are the following schemas allowed: 1) connect the switch using FC to each of the servers, and then create three partitions (e.g. with parted or fdisk). Then mount at each of the servers only its own partition. Will that work reliably? In theory, the switch gives block level access to the shared device; the servers should not access anything simultaniously, and hence no data inconsitency should occur. 2) the same, but use a LVM -- create logical partitions, and let the three servers use each its own logical partition. Again, sorry if the question is trivial or just plain stupid. j. I'd suggest not doing this. Three hosts sharing one partition table sounds like disaster. Say you reinstall the first host with the partition table. what happens to the other machines? divide the 3TB as needed into three luns. zone the luns to the correct hosts. Then there's no way at all they can botch up data on another machine. Also, there's no reason to present data to a host that it doesn't need to access anyways. That's definitely the most sound way to do it. If you're not looking at a CFS then you really need different luns per host. ~F |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question on partitioning a storage array
January Weiner pisze:
Hello, please don't bash me if I ask stupid things. I am only an "acting admin". The situation is as follows: a storage box (3TB) configured as RAID5. One volume, one LUN. An FC switch. Three servers. I would not like to use (for now) a clustering FS. [CUT... ] if this is not for cluster - divide destroy 1 LUN, create 3 separate LUN's. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sata Storage Array | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 0 | May 4th 07 04:54 PM |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Storage & Hardrives | 42 | March 3rd 05 01:04 AM |
How I built a 2.8TB RAID storage array | Yeechang Lee | Homebuilt PC's | 31 | February 22nd 05 07:40 PM |
I want to build a 2.8TB storage array | Yeechang Lee | Homebuilt PC's | 21 | January 12th 05 02:00 AM |
I want to build a 2.8TB storage array | Yeechang Lee | Storage (alternative) | 16 | January 11th 05 07:51 PM |