I will be upgrading the 2.x soon-ish, including "dist-upgrade"-ing all the MFS servers (master, chunkservers, and metaloggers) to Ubuntu 14.04, and, quite possibly, installing a v4.1.x kernel from the kernel-ppa mainline archive (to take advantage of filesystem performance and stability improvements).
I currently activated a third chunkserver, made all goals=3, and it is about 60% done replicating. Hopefully the replication finish sometime this week. Once done replicating, I will take it offline plus one of the metaloggers too, and attempt to upgrade them to the latest stable version. If everything go well (including validating that there is no corruption of any file), I will then schedule the actual upgrade.
The Zimbra VM though will remain in Ubuntu 8.04. But there is a separate plan to eventually upgrade to the latest stable version.
Best regards,
--- mike t.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:14:55 +0200
From: ale...@mo...
To: mic...@ho...
CC: dw...@mo...
Subject: Re: [MooseFS-Users] Network overhead and best method of sharing
Hi
Thank you for this information.
Do you consider to update all this systems?
MooseFS in version 1.6 and Ubuntu 8 is no longer supported.
Lot of improvements ware made since MFS version 1.6 and ubuntu 8.04
LTS
If you are interested in HA solution for MooseFS or some support,
please visit our web site at http://moosefs.com
Best regards
Aleksander Wieliczko
Technical Support Engineer
MooseFS.com
On 22.08.2015 05:37, Michael Tinsay
wrote:
We have a relatively old Zimbra Mail system up and
running on a KVM-based VM runing Ubuntu 8.04. Zimbra recommends
not using SMB/CIFS to network mount its message store --
actually they recommend using local disks, but if you really
have to use a network mount, they say use NFS.
So what I have currently: the Zimbra VM mount its message
store via NFS; the NFS is exported by the host machine
(running Ubuntu 12.04); and the exported directory is an
mfsmount-ed folder.
Initially we experienced a few problems (missing mails),
but they went away when we exported the folder with the *sync*
parameter. So far so good. Our email system is used by close
to 500 users and its message store will hit 2TB soon (25% of
our available MFS space).
Specs:
MooseFS version: 1.6.26
Host Machine: Ubuntu 12.04,
nfs-kernel-server 1:1.2.5-3ubuntu3.2
VM Guest: Ubuntu 8.04, nfs-common 1:1.1.2-2ubuntu2.4
--- mike t.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:04:14 +0200
From: ale...@mo...
To: mic...@ho...;
moo...@li...
Subject: Re: [MooseFS-Users] Network overhead and best
method of sharing
Question is what kind of software are you using as NFS
server?
We have lots of bad experience in performance and stability
with nfs-kernel-server and mfsmount.
It's rather not good idea to use nfs-kernel-server and
mfsmount in production environment.
Can you tell as something more about your configuration?
What NFS software are you using?
A would like to add that MooseFS have native client for most
popular operating systems:
- Ubuntu 10/12/14
- Debian 5/6/7/8
- RHEL/CentOS versions 5/6/7
- OpenSUSE 12
- FreeBSD 9.3/10
- MacOS X 10.9/10.10
- Raspberry Pi 2
Best regards
Aleksander Wieliczko
Technical Support Engineer
MooseFS.com
On 21.08.2015 05:18, Michael
Tinsay wrote:
Why not NFS? Are there any incompatibilities between
MFS client and NFS?
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:17:26 +0200
> From: Aleksander Wieliczko <ale...@mo...>
> Subject: Re: [MooseFS-Users] Network overhead and
best method of
> sharing
> To: "R. C." <mil...@gm...>
> Cc: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <47E...@mo...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Raffaello
>
> If you use OS which supports MooseFS-client try
to not use any re-share method. You will always add
another layer in communication during re-share. Direct
use of mfsmount will always be better.
>
> But if you like to use MooseFS on Windows or
storage for Virtualisation try to use SAMBA/iSCSI
Target.
> We are not advising to use NFS as re-share
method.
>
> Best Regards
> Aleksander Wieliczko
> Technical Support Engineer
> MooseFS.com <http://moosefs.com/>
|
