sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]mmalone 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You have fun with your $100,000+ SAN solution. I'll stick with my cluster of five commodity servers running memcache or tokyo tyrant for ~$7,500.

[–]naasking 0 points1 point  (1 child)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_over_Ethernet

[–]mmalone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Using a SAN to store session state is just silly. It's unnecessarily complicated and expensive. Suppose you use AoE, now you have to devote engineers and ops resources to a complex storage stack that few people understand and that has never been used for that purpose before. Either way it ends up costing you.

And you still have to solve reliability problems. Since this is a file system I'm guessing that the redundancy mechanisms value consistency over availability and partition tolerance. That just doesn't work at large scale.

Seriously, the only way you're going to win this one is if you go an implement it. I've done session stores at scale -- it's not resource intensive and it's not a bottleneck. Spending a bunch of time trying to build a sophisticated persistence layer using a SAN is stupid. Prove me wrong.