Fwd: [wplug] Re: NFS Availability Issues -- why I should just help off-list ...

[Brandon Poyner]

> After reading your statements, its as if you don't ever see a need
> for network filesystems in general.

That's really the wrong conclusion.  I specifically said I'm not a
huge fan of NFS.

> That's not even what I'm talking about.  I don't know how many times
> I see people think I'm talking "costs."  I've had this discussion on
> using FireWire for Oracle RAC clustering.  There are just certain
> functions that _break_.  Not merely "doesn't work well" or "is not
> enterprise grade" -- but functions that _break_.

Costs really matter in some people's projects.  I wasn't specifically
addressing anything you said about costs.  To quote the original
poster:   "It wouldn't be out of the question to buy a second server
to act as a hot spare at another location, but it wouldn't be cheap or
easy."   Not everybody is trying to run a ERP system and not everybody
has the money to buy a SAN for their tiny project.  You sometimes have
to find alternatives that work for your project that are within
budget.  Nearly unlimited money could buy you five 9s .. I don't think
the OP is in that position.

> > If you have the money to spend on something better by all
> > means use something better.
>
> Again, has _zilch_ to do with any of this.  It has to do with what
> will _not_ "break" when you have persistent open directories, files,
> mounts, etc...  End user applications on a workstation, with open and
> locked files for writing to a directory, versus files that are opened
> read-only and quickly closed on a web server.

I'm not disagreeing that NFS over DRBD _could_ break on you, I have no
direct experience with that.  For what it's worth NFS isn't
appropriate for many things (usenet  server anyone?).  All I know is
that DRBD + NFS works for some people.

If the original poster was looking for a "never fail" solution I would
think he would have mentioned that.

> And that's yet skipping to _another_ context.  The whole "thin"
> client v. "fat" workstation.  I'm not against such discussions, I'm
> just trying to point out this isn't about "money" or why someone does
> or doesn't use NFS, or network filesystems in general, or why they
> could even try to ignore the real, enterprise need for network
> filesystems, or at least a distributed way of reading _and_ writing
> _and_ locking files.

Once again, the cost comments weren't directed at you.  It's directed
at the OP.   Sorry if you mistook a general comment about costs as a
slam or something.

> However, the detail is ...
> - Maintain the context of the question
> - That will offer solutions that address the question
> - Which involves people actually sharing what they used
> - And, most importantly, what actually worked

I'm fairly sure I covered 1, 2, and 3 .. and 4 anecdotally.  Like I
said, not a big fan of NFS.

> I'm sorry if I "burnt" anyone here.  But I have seen too many times
> where people get into something, and then hit the obviousness of the
> truth ... "oh crap, that's not going to work."  And then they finally
> post to the "experts" on the matter, and even they turn around and
> say, "what the hell are you doing that for, it's not designed for
> it?"

Sometimes that's due to sloppiness, sure.  Other times it's due to not
understanding how large a project will become (perhaps more
sloppiness).  Linux is full of ways to shoot yourself in the foot and
often without a support agreement.   If the good solutions were cheap,
everybody would be using them.

-- 
Brandon
Kiva.org - Make a small loan, Make a big difference