<html><body><p>the question is what difference does it make ? <br>as i mentioned if all your 2 or 3 nodes do is serving NFS it doesn't matter if the protocol nodes or the NSD services are down in both cases it means no access to data which it makes no sense to separate them in this case (unless load dependent).<br>i haven't seen nodes reboot specifically because of protocol issues lately, the fact that everything is in userspace makes things easier too. <br><br>sven<br><br>------------------------------------------<br>Sven Oehme <br>Scalable Storage Research <br>email: oehmes@us.ibm.com <br>Phone: +1 (408) 824-8904 <br>IBM Almaden Research Lab <br>------------------------------------------<br><br><img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=4EBBF5FDDFDFC23D8f9e8a93df938690918c4EB@" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Zachary Giles ---03/06/2016 02:31:29 AM---Sven, What about the stability of the new protocol nodes vs"><font color="#424282">Zachary Giles ---03/06/2016 02:31:29 AM---Sven, What about the stability of the new protocol nodes vs the old cNFS? If you</font><br><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">From: </font><font size="2">Zachary Giles <zgiles@gmail.com></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">To: </font><font size="2">gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Date: </font><font size="2">03/06/2016 02:31 AM</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Subject: </font><font size="2">Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Small cluster</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Sent by: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font><br><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br><br><br><font size="4">Sven,</font><br><font size="4">What about the stability of the new protocol nodes vs the old cNFS? If you remember, back in the day, cNFS would sometimes have a problem and reboot the whole server itself. Obviously this was problematic if it's one of the few servers running your cluster. I assume this is different now with the Protocol Servers? </font><br><br><br><font size="4">On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Marc A Kaplan <</font><a href="mailto:makaplan@us.ibm.com" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">makaplan@us.ibm.com</font></u></a><font size="4">> wrote:</font><ul>Indeed it seems to just add overhead and expense to split what can be done by one node over two nodes! <font size="4"><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at </font><a href="http://spectrumscale.org/" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">spectrumscale.org</font></u></a><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF"><br></font></u><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></u></a><font size="4"><br></font></ul><font size="4"><br></font><br><br><font size="4">-- </font><br><font size="4">Zach Giles</font><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF"><br></font></u><a href="mailto:zgiles@gmail.com" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zgiles@gmail.com</font></u></a><tt>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></tt><tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></tt><tt><br></tt><br><br><BR>
</body></html>