On 03/25/10 00:45, Michal wrote:
backend storage for databases. It's all well and good having 1 ZFS server, but it's fragile in the the sense of no redundancy, then we have 1 ZFS server and a 2nd with DRBD, but that's a waste of money...think 12 TB, and you need to pay for another 12TB box for redundancy, and you are still looking at 1 server. I am thinking a cheap solution but one that has IO throughput, redundancy and is easy to manange and expand across multiple nodes.
Well, what I described is kind of like that, centered around trying to best balance redundancy and cost. For example, you don't need two 12 TB boxes in a mirror. Depending on what you need you can get only one 12 TB box at the start, then with ZFS trivially extend that storage with another 12 TB box when you need it, repeat to infinity (each box will internally have RAID6 or something like that). Of course then you have a problem if a single box fails, which you can get around by using triplets of 12 TB boxes in RAIDZ, etc. etc.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
