[Pvfs2-users] Hello.

[David Case]

I am looking at PVFS to replace a system of 45 machines holding about 100tb of 
data, were we currently use nfs and a bunch of symlinks to keep track of 
everything.  When I was given this thing to administer, I was able to 
parallelize parts of it, but having everything under one filesystem would be 
really really nice.

This system is basically the music equivalent of a render farm -- we get about 
60-100 cds a day, we encode them in a lossless compressed format, then have a 
set of windows machines that run the various encodings (mp3, aac, wma, etc... 
some of which are unavailable on Linux).  And then the files get delivered to 
a bunch of downstream partner companies (probably 70 or so).  We keep a copy 
of all the encodings we do (23 different encodings at this time, more soon).  
So ideally we need a fast parallel system that can also serve as an archive 
(because when new partner companies come in, we give them the whole catalog).

If we had a catastrophic loss of all the data, I would probably lose my job, 
but occasional partial losses are recoverable (we keep a store copy of every 
CD, and we have recovered from losing 10,000 albums in a fairly short amount 
of time)

So do you think PVFS is suitable?  I saw a post on this list that it is best 
suited for use as a fast scratchpad.  I really like PVFS over Lustre just 
from looking at it -- a kernel module is vastly more palatable than patching 
the kernel, plus the whole thing is totally free and open, unlike Lustre.

What do you think?

-- 
David Case
Digital Distribution Wrangler
dave at cdbaby.com