I’ve seen some talk about GFS on the list in the past. I’m currently
looking at this as a potential solution to deploying Rails apps to 50+
servers. Basically to take advantage of GFS giving you a single
disk/file-system across the servers; to help ensure truly one set of
deployed to all servers, faster deploys, etc.
We currently have about 50+ servers, and that will grow. Our
architecture is SOA, so in reality one rails app won’t be on all 50
they’ll be grouped, say 10-20 servers per service.
I am currently eyeing a GFS setup where we use a server (per group) as a
disk, and GNBD across the machines. So, no SAN, no iSCSI, no fiber,
It’s what I have available, so balancing the advantage of GFS vs.
the code to all machines in a more traditional setup.
The servers in this case are 64bit boxes, with dual cores, and GigE
but for this discussion assume a single one, since we split the net on
etc.). Also, our application file storage is done using a different
infrastructure, so it doesn’t play into this. Databases are also on
I have not used GFS before, so I’m hoping for some input on some of
I presume that for the actual Rails application code, since it gets
up once in production mode, that say 20 servers pulling that from a
GNBD/GFS file system server would be no biggy. Correct?
Logs - this seems to be the danger area to me. Assuming we have “high
traffic”, and that we do quite a bit of logging (we log a lot of info
metrics and ability to follow requests through the SOA architecture,
I worry about 20 servers all writing to a single log on the one GNBD/GFS
server. Valid worry, or? Are there alternatives I should look at for
logging in such an environment?
Thoughts, comments, notes on this approach in general?