[Lustre-discuss] Question on lustre redundancy/failure features

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 6/28/10, Peter Grandi <pg_lus at lus.for.sabi.co.uk> wrote:
>> I'm looking at using Lustre to implement a centralized storage
>> for several virtualized machines.
>
> That's such a cliche, and Lustre is very suitable for it if you
> don't mind network latency :-), or if you use a very low latency
> fabric.
>
> In general I am surprised (or perhaps not :->) by how many
> "clever" people choose to provide resource virtualization and
> parallelization at the lower levels of abstaction (e.g. block
> device) and not at the higher ones (service protocol), thus
> enjoying all the "benefits" of centralization. But then probably
> they don't care about availability and in particular abut latency
> (and sometimes not even about throughput).

Am I correct to understand that you mean the approach I am considering
is stupid then? Which wouldn't be too surprising since I'm a newbie at
this so I'll appreciate any pointers in the right direction :)

What do you mean by higher levels of abstraction and benefits of
centralization? Would it be correct to understand that to mean instead
of trying to provide redundant storage, I should be looking at
providing several servers that would simply fail over to each other?

e.g.
S1 (VM1, VM2, VM3) failover to S2
S2 (VM4, VM5, VM6) failover to S3
S3 (VM7, VM8, VM9) failover to S1