I would suggest using NFS to access a Network Appliance "filer". It has the things you describe. www.netapp.com
Of course Linux will have a good chunk of the SGI XFS fs soon.
Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> James Rogers writes:
>
> > Microsoft was trying to appeal to the PHB types who are easily impressed by
> > the word "terabyte". Only a fool would try to run a large online database
> > on a Microsoft OS, but I've seen numerous people try at places I've worked.
> > The results have always been less than impressive.
>
> What would be interesting is to move the (thoroughly debugged;
> RAID-capable; journalling) file system into the periperal storage
> unit itself. It can be based on some simple embedded OS, even no need
> to go multitasking -- to maximize simplicity. Perhaps even move most
> of it into hardware?
>
> I think the chiefest reason against just putting objects into
> nonvolatile virtual memory vs. using file systems currently
> is instability. Horrible to lose a large database to a simple
> system crash. Of course with checkpointing (periodic total
> system state snapshots) and extremely stable software this
> might become less an issue.
>
> It would be interesting to speculate if a simplified Linux could ever
> grow stable enough for this.
-- Join the ExI/>H SETI team today: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_show&id=393 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "It IS possible." - Vincent, _Gattaca_