Are There Reasonable Multi-Master Over the WAN Storage Options?
-
Although I've only submitted that recommendation to @StefUk so it might be that with a talk with the business that they will understand and be ready to go that route.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Why not go with Self-Hosting and replicated off-site?
If somebody in France needs access to a file from Malaysia, then they should connect to the Malaysia file server via <insert your method here> to access the files.
Like @scottalanmiller -- sometimes you have to change the processes.
That's what I am thinking. I want to look at using Exablox, one at each site. Each site with their own share of which they are the master that then replicates to the other sites.
Unless I missed it, we still haven't been told how large the files are. Is it better to deal with possible sync issues, or how about using RDS instead? If you really need to work on a file at relative performance, an RDS server in each location that users can share might be a better option.
-
RDS to a central location with VDI is being proposed as a long term solution, but not something that they are prepared to deal with in the short term.
-
How does using Exablox solve a file versioning problem? What is the solution for that specific problem, assuming you can't force a lock out to all nodes?
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
RDS to a central location with VDI is being proposed as a long term solution, but not something that they are prepared to deal with in the short term.
Just before reading this, that is exactly where my mind leapt. Centralize the whole thing - RDS to a box near that storage pool. Problem solved.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
How does using Exablox solve a file versioning problem?
Single site masters.
Please provide more details.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
How does using Exablox solve a file versioning problem?
Single site masters.
Please provide more details.
UK Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to France and KL.
France Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to UK and KL.
KL Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to UK and France.
Each site gets its own local data of which it is "in charge". It has the "write" share for that data. The replication is purely for reads.
Each site can work with its local data as normal. It's just a normal mapped drive for them. If a site needs data from another site it grabs a read only copy super fast from the replication, makes changes and then saves those changes over the WAN to the location where the master for that share is. Cumbersome on the less common saves, but only one master for every file.
-
Awesome - thanks!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
How does using Exablox solve a file versioning problem?
Single site masters.
Please provide more details.
UK Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to France and KL.
France Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to UK and KL.
KL Exablox with a share of which it is the master. Replication of that data goes to UK and France.
Each site gets its own local data of which it is "in charge". It has the "write" share for that data. The replication is purely for reads.
Each site can work with its local data as normal. It's just a normal mapped drive for them. If a site needs data from another site it grabs a read only copy super fast from the replication, makes changes and then saves those changes over the WAN to the location where the master for that share is. Cumbersome on the less common saves, but only one master for every file.
Exactly, and if they restructure their shares correctly, those less common saves should really be uncommon.
-
Hi everyone,
thanks for chiming in ... and thanks @scottalanmiller for posting this on my behalf.RDS is currently out of the question at the moment due to intense graphical resources that they need. We are looking at some long term solutions - Nvidia Grid of some sort but at the moment RDS will not cut it.
stef
-
@JaredBusch That's what I am thinking. Hopefully the workflow will make for a pretty solid local storage situation the bulk of the time.
-
@JaredBusch @JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
that's good in terms of replication.
but what about working on the same files - project ? what you are saying is that there is no way to get them to work on the same project without file version issues ?Stef
-
@StefUk said:
@JaredBusch @JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
that's good in terms of replication.
but what about working on the same files - project ? what you are saying is that there is no way to get them to work on the same project without file version issues ?Correct, there is not. If they each have a copy of their own data, they each have an opportunity to work on them at the same time. Once you have multiple masters, you have issues. No way around that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@StefUk said:
@JaredBusch @JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
that's good in terms of replication.
but what about working on the same files - project ? what you are saying is that there is no way to get them to work on the same project without file version issues ?Correct, there is not. If they each have a copy of their own data, they each have an opportunity to work on them at the same time. Once you have multiple masters, you have issues. No way around that.
So really we're trying to figure out how to combine all of the changes, correct? Can't this be done with .tmp files fragmenting and then recombining? I'm sure their software doesn't support this but I'm just asking hypothetically for my own knowledge.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
So really we're trying to figure out how to combine all of the changes, correct? Can't this be done with .tmp files fragmenting and then recombining?
Not generically, no. Combining changes is never something that can be handled by storage. An application might be able to do that, but a storage system never can.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
So really we're trying to figure out how to combine all of the changes, correct? Can't this be done with .tmp files fragmenting and then recombining?
Not generically, no. Combining changes is never something that can be handled by storage. An application might be able to do that, but a storage system never can.
Yeah I mean at the application level. She would need a third party piece of software that specifically handles this--which is another point of failure
-
Hmm, I can't remember exactly but I think the BBC actually pulled this off with a particular product.
I can't remember what it's called.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Hmm, I can't remember exactly but I think the BBC actually pulled this off with a particular product.
I can't remember what it's called.
You can do it, like I can build it with GFS2 and DRBD, the problem is once a WAN link fails you have a disaster. Do you simply cut everyone off? Or do you allow local edits?
-
If you have the budget to go for "never fail" WAN links, you can do a lot to make this kind of thing feasible. But when they do fail, you have to come up with a failure mitigation strategy.
