 |
 |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:13:12AM -0500, Anton Kapela wrote: > (Chiming in because storage and OS nerding) > > Given the use case (safety > perf), perhaps the route server storage > would be best matched by something like a sync-mounted file system, > raid1 with no cache enabled, or read cache only with a forced > write-through? Overkill and wrong solution for the wrong, imaginary, problem. > A pair of SLC-type SSD's with ext3/4, or XFS mounted 'sync' atop a > write-through raid1 should still be entirely awesome and performant > for the job of booting an OS and loading route-server binaries, and > perhaps even soaking up a few syslog outputs...while being as 'safe' > as the hardware allows. This isn't Linux either. Cause. You don't need linux to be your every hammer for every nail. Cause that's my storage and OS nerding coming out. Wanna really go to town? GlusterFS with 3 nodes with replica=3 and one node not on same network. But that won't help the system from crashing because of potential firmware bugs going on as Doug has mentioned. That's the problem, not an issue of corrupted storage. In fact, as far as I know, there has been zero corruption of data during these periods of instability showing that FreeBSD rocks even when using ZFS and I bet would be just as stable with UFS. > If that sounds tempting, tell me where to fedex the ssd media & > caddy adapters :) SSDs always good though. BTW: I'm a troll. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via [log in to unmask]