Should We Ever Talk About JBODs
-
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Storage pools on Windows Server. You can add disks as needed, and over allocate with thin provisioning. I consider that a straight up JBOD because of over allocation and adding disks as needed. Not much to it other than grabbing disks out of primordial and assigning to a VHD. Also consider it JBOD because though you can choose parity, it is not inherent.
But in that case again, doesn't just calling it "disks" cover that? A Storage Pool is "post JBOD" at best. Once in a pool, by definition it can't be JBOD any longer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Storage pools on Windows Server. You can add disks as needed, and over allocate with thin provisioning. I consider that a straight up JBOD because of over allocation and adding disks as needed. Not much to it other than grabbing disks out of primordial and assigning to a VHD. Also consider it JBOD because though you can choose parity, it is not inherent.
But in that case again, doesn't just calling it "disks" cover that? A Storage Pool is "post JBOD" at best. Once in a pool, by definition it can't be JBOD any longer.
Definitely post-JBOD (and I am definitely going off the path and stretching the term). But once in a pool, they are literally just a bunch of disks. They are not in a RAID configuration, so that right there opens up the idea that they could be a JBOD. Since a JBOD can expose the drives individually, or as one logical volume, a pool could be called a JBOD depending on how the pool is configured.
Since the pool can consist of any drives, can be setup as one volume, can be over-allocated, and drives dynamically added to it, I would definitely say it could be called a JBOD (at least as far as Storage Pools goes for Windows Server). Literally just a bunch of disks thrown into a pool. There are some nitty gritty I suppose about what makes a JBOD an actual JBOD, but down to the basics of it, I think the criteria is met with Storage Pools (just my opinion though).
-
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Storage pools on Windows Server. You can add disks as needed, and over allocate with thin provisioning. I consider that a straight up JBOD because of over allocation and adding disks as needed. Not much to it other than grabbing disks out of primordial and assigning to a VHD. Also consider it JBOD because though you can choose parity, it is not inherent.
But in that case again, doesn't just calling it "disks" cover that? A Storage Pool is "post JBOD" at best. Once in a pool, by definition it can't be JBOD any longer.
Definitely post-JBOD (and I am definitely going off the path and stretching the term). But once in a pool, they are literally just a bunch of disks. They are not in a RAID configuration, so that right there opens up the idea that they could be a JBOD. Since a JBOD can expose the drives individually, or as one logical volume, a pool could be called a JBOD depending on how the pool is configured.
Since the pool can consist of any drives, can be setup as one volume, can be over-allocated, and drives dynamically added to it, I would definitely say it could be called a JBOD (at least as far as Storage Pools goes for Windows Server). Literally just a bunch of disks thrown into a pool. There are some nitty gritty I suppose about what makes a JBOD an actual JBOD, but down to the basics of it, I think the criteria is met with Storage Pools (just my opinion though).
If JBOD only means non-RAID, then RAIN is JBOD, which makes no sense. Would you consider AetherStore, Exablox, Scale, VSAN, Gluster, CEPH and such to be JBOD? They are anything but "just a bunch of disks", they are single storage systems. Once the term "pool" exists, I think JBOD has to be ruled out.
-
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Since the pool can consist of any drives, can be setup as one volume, can be over-allocated, and drives dynamically added to it, I would definitely say it could be called a JBOD ...
That description to me sounds like you are about to say that since they can be all those things then they clearly can't be a JBOD, but you end with the opposite conclusion than I would expect from the description.
-
@BBigford said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Literally just a bunch of disks thrown into a pool.
Same as "just a bunch of disks thrown into an array".
Normally that's the polar opposite of JBOD.
-
Here's wikipedia's def:
So going by that, it's a JBOD until you span them (or essentially do anything else with multiple disks). So then theoretically, I guess if you had a specific mount point for each drive, it would be a JBOD.
sda -> /disk1
sdb -> /disk2
sdc -> /disk3So I guess if nothing is spanned across, it could be a JBOD?
-
@stacksofplates said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Here's wikipedia's def:
So going by that, it's a JBOD until you span them (or essentially do anything else with multiple disks). So then theoretically, I guess if you had a specific mount point for each drive, it would be a JBOD.
sda -> /disk1
sdb -> /disk2
sdc -> /disk3So I guess if nothing is spanned across, it could be a JBOD?
It doesn't list only the two things, or else RAID would still be JBOD. It just is two examples there. One example is JBOD, one is SPAN. There are many others, some listed, some not. Wasn't MAID on the list, too?
-
Isn't a pool a form of spanning? Do pools display the original devices through, or new ones? Pools are an LVM, and any LVM use means JBOD is long gone.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
re. One example is JBOD, one is SPAN. There are many others, some listed, some not. Wasn't MAID on the list, too?
I only copied some of the definition. My point was they said a SPAN is "from" a JBOD. Being from, it can't be that after you span them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Isn't a pool a form of spanning? Do pools display the original devices through, or new ones? Pools are an LVM, and any LVM use means JBOD is long gone.
I never mentioned pooling. I wasn't talking about any logical volume implementations. Just straight disks with file systems mounted to individual mount points.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
@stacksofplates said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
Here's wikipedia's def:
So going by that, it's a JBOD until you span them (or essentially do anything else with multiple disks). So then theoretically, I guess if you had a specific mount point for each drive, it would be a JBOD.
sda -> /disk1
sdb -> /disk2
sdc -> /disk3So I guess if nothing is spanned across, it could be a JBOD?
It doesn't list only the two things, or else RAID would still be JBOD. It just is two examples there. One example is JBOD, one is SPAN. There are many others, some listed, some not. Wasn't MAID on the list, too?
Yeah, MAID was on the list. I only copied the first two because of the "from JBOD" phrase.
-
@stacksofplates said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:
re. One example is JBOD, one is SPAN. There are many others, some listed, some not. Wasn't MAID on the list, too?
I only copied some of the definition. My point was they said a SPAN is "from" a JBOD. Being from, it can't be that after you span them.
Ah, just like a pool is "from a JBOD."
-
Uh-oh. Dell is doing it now ^_^
-
Argh
-
