Yes... I agree with with you... not really my decision at the time, since I didn't work here... but I guess the thought was that RaidFrame would provide more uptime in case of multiple harddrive failures, and not really data protection.
Thanks Daniel Daniel Ouellet wrote: > Tom Bombadil wrote: >> One funny story about redundancy in general: we run raidframe to mirror >> the 2 disks in the system... And like I said both firewalls were >> crashing together... After the crash our allegedly redundant firewalls >> were both down for 20 minutes for parity rebuilding... simplicity is a >> beautiful thing ;) > > May be that's just me, but a very simple question for you. If you have > redundant firewall and I guess you are running CARP on them right? Why > would you even have raidframe setup on a firewall. > > Isn't it the KISS gold principal would dictate otherwise here. Specially > for a firewall. A good firewall needs the minimum setup on it. > > Obviously I may be talking none sense here, but RaidFrame on a firewall > is the last place I would put it. > > What kind of data do you want to protect on a RaidFrame. The list of bad > ssh attackers for your PF configurations? Must be a HUGE list to needs > RaidFrame for it! (;> > > Just a thought, may be review your setup might be much better then > trying to get new hardware, but that's just me. > > Best, > > Daniel
