Feeds

Perish the fault! Can your storage array take a bullet AND LIVE?

Sysadmin Trevor's gentle guide to protecting your data - and your career

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

Get this right and you'll be singing in the RAIN

RAIN is a redundant (or reliable) array of inexpensive Nodes. For a brilliant explanation I direct you to this video by Gene Fay of Nine Technology. Short version: RAIN copies your data across multiple individual computers for redundancy.

A server rack full of storage nodes

Seize the RAINs, keep your servers' data protected

There are many different implementations of RAIN out there today; this is a large part of what the kerfuffle over "big data" is all about. When you have conversations about HDFS, GlusterFS or Amazon's S3 you are talking about RAIN. In general, RAIN setups don't work like traditional file systems, although the Gluster team is building tech on top of GlusterFS that seeks to change this.

With most RAIN setups, your operating system doesn't mount them, you don't create NFS or SMB shares. If you really want to do those types of activities you need to be using virtual disks on top of the RAIN array using something like FUSE. At this point you're way out in the weeds and you should probably be reassessing the whole project. Still, if you really want to, you can be bizarre and run VMware virtual machines on Gluster via an NFS server translator.

While you can throw layers of translation of top of a RAIN setup in order to make it pretend to be a traditional disk, RAIN is generally for object (not file) storage. It's better to think of RAIN setups as really big databases rather than traditional file systems.

Bulletproof clusters

Of course, if ZFS or RAID underpin your storage layer, then what happens if I shoot the storage server? RAIN would seem to be resilient to the loss of an individual system, but there's nothing native to ZFS or RAID to deal with a bullet through the CPU.

This is where clustering comes in. An ideal deployment for fault tolerance would have two servers in bit-for-bit lock-step. In the free software world you are looking at DRBD with Linux or HAST with FreeBSD.

Assuming you have a solid hardware RAID underneath, Microsoft's Server 2012 is actually the basis for a very reliable cluster. Cluster Shared Volumes v2 is how I get my RAID 61: hardware RAID 6 on each node, mirrored. (I turn write caching off in order to ensure that I don't lose data in memory if a node dies. Slower, but safer.)

Combine that with Server 2012's new NFS 4.1 server, the iSCSI target or SMB 3.0 (which supports multichannel, transparent failover and node fault tolerance) and I can shoot one of my Microsoft servers without the VMware cluster that uses them for storage knowing anything's happened.

Speaking of VMware, they offer the vSphere Storage Appliance. It is a reliable technology for creating a storage cluster, however it only scales to three physical systems per storage appliance.

It's all rather a mess right now, isn't it?

If you are starting to sense some holes in feature availability here, you aren't alone. This is why storage vendors exist as separate entities. Honest-to-$deity fault-tolerant storage with open-source tools is an absolute pig to implement and Microsoft needs time to get all its technology ducks in a row. (It needs triple disk redundancy with ReFS on Cluster Shared Volumes scaling to hundreds of nodes before it is a real player.) VMware has the basic technology but it needs to scale quite a bit more before they are a real consideration.

This is why there are so many storage startups out there. It is also why the storage giants can still sell those big, expensive SANs. There is a lot to consider when planning your storage today, even if it is only for a single server. What you knew ten years ago doesn't really apply any more. What you knew five years ago is probably just enough to get you into trouble.

Of course, these technologies are for fault tolerance only. Fault tolerance is not a backup. If your data doesn't exist in at least two physical locations, then your data does not exist; make sure that on top of utilising the fault tolerant technologies discussed above that you have a proper backup plan. And remember: a fault tolerant system (or a backup) that hasn't been tested isn't any form of protection at all. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
Docker's app containers are coming to Windows Server, says Microsoft
MS chases app deployment speeds already enjoyed by Linux devs
IBM storage revenues sink: 'We are disappointed,' says CEO
Time to put the storage biz up for sale?
'Hmm, why CAN'T I run a water pipe through that rack of media servers?'
Leaving Las Vegas for Armenia kludging and Dubai dune bashing
'Urika': Cray unveils new 1,500-core big data crunching monster
6TB of DRAM, 38TB of SSD flash and 120TB of disk storage
Facebook slurps 'paste sites' for STOLEN passwords, sprinkles on hash and salt
Zuck's ad empire DOESN'T see details in plain text. Phew!
SDI wars: WTF is software defined infrastructure?
This time we play for ALL the marbles
Windows 10: Forget Cloudobile, put Security and Privacy First
But - dammit - It would be insane to say 'don't collect, because NSA'
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.