<font size=2 face="sans-serif">I don't know. That said, let's be
logical and cautious. </font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Your network performance has got to
be comparable to (preferably better than!) your disk/storage system.
</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Think speed, latency, bandwidth, jitter,
reliability, security.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">For a production system with data you
care about, that probably means a dedicated/private/reserved channel, probably
on private or leased fiber.</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sure you can cobble together a demo,
proof-of-concept, or prototype with less than that, but are you going to
bet your career, life, friendships, data on that?</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Then you have to work through and test
failure and recover scenarios...</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This forum would be one place to gather
at least some anecdotes from power users/admins who might be running GPFS
clusters spread over</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">multiple kilometers... </font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Is there a sale or marketing team selling
this? What do they recommend?</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here is an excerpt from an IBM white
paper I found by googling... Notice the qualifier "high quality
wide area network":</font><br><br><font size=3>"...Synchronous replication works well for many workloads
by replicating data across storage arrays within a data center, within
a campus or across geographical distances using high quality wide area
network connections. When wide area network connections are not high performance
or are not reliable, an asynchronous approach to data replication is required.
GPFS 3.5 introduces a feature called Active File Management (AFM). </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">..."<br></font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Of course GPFS has improved (and been
renamed!) since 3.5 but 4.2 cannot magically compensate for a not-so-high-quality
network!</font><br><br><br><br><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Mark.Bush@siriuscom.com"
<Mark.Bush@siriuscom.com></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug main discussion
list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">07/20/2016 07:34 PM</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [gpfsug-discuss]
NDS in Two Site scenario</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font><br><hr noshade><br><br><br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Marc, what you are saying is anything outside
a particular data center shouldn’t be part of a cluster? I’m not
sure marketing is in line with this then. </font><br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font><br><font size=3 face="Calibri"><b>From: </b><gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org>
on behalf of Marc A Kaplan <makaplan@us.ibm.com><b><br>Reply-To: </b>gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><b><br>Date: </b>Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 4:52 PM<b><br>To: </b>gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><b><br>Subject: </b>Re: [gpfsug-discuss] NDS in Two Site scenario</font><br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Careful! You need to plan and test,
test and plan both failure scenarios and performance under high network
loads.<br>I don't believe GPFS was designed with the idea of splitting clusters over
multiple sites. <br>If your inter-site network runs fast enough, and you can administer it
well enough -- perhaps it will work well enough...</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>Hint: Think about the what the words "cluster" and "site"
mean.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>GPFS does have the AFM feature, which was designed for multi-site deployments.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br></font><p><font size=1 face="Cambria">This message (including any attachments)
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. This message may be viewed by parties at Sirius Computer Solutions
other than those named in the message header. This message does not contain
an official representation of Sirius Computer Solutions. If you have received
this communication in error, notify Sirius Computer Solutions immediately
and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you. </font><p><a href=http://www.siriuscom.com/><font size=2 color=#0082bf face="Calibri"><b><u>Sirius
Computer Solutions</u></b></font></a><font size=3> </font><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br></font></tt><p><BR>