> "Mike" == Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> As was the fact that they are well-staffed at the management
Mike> level, but they are still advertising for some *very* key
Mike> development and architectural positions.
Actually, they have a bunch of *very* bright engine
> Unless the network is lying to me again, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
> > Another company to look at is Yottayotta (www.yottayotta.com).
>
> Yeah, and they have a theme song...
>
> http://www.yottayotta.com/images/YottaYotta_Song.mp3
>
> Or is that a reason *NOT* to look at their product?
H
> "Alan" == Alan Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alan> Or is that a reason *NOT* to look at their product?
I'd buy the storage gear, but I think I'll pass on the album ;-)
--lyndon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the m
Unless the network is lying to me again, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
> Another company to look at is Yottayotta (www.yottayotta.com).
Yeah, and they have a theme song...
http://www.yottayotta.com/images/YottaYotta_Song.mp3
Or is that a reason *NOT* to look at their product?
AlanC
To Unsu
Another company to look at is Yottayotta (www.yottayotta.com).
They just announced their first products last November, and there
isn't much hard product info online yet. For the arena they're
targeting, though, 70TB would be an entry level system.
--lyndon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
>
> when it comes to ibm, as far as i understand you have to hook up their
> filers to rs/6000(aix) or s/370 or s/390 systems since they are "only"
> fibrechannel or ficon attached raid subsystems, so the client platform
> is responsible for handling all the filesystem stuff.
Hrrm. The last box
Mike Smith([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:52:24PM -0800:
>
> You can't do this with a NetApp either; they max out at about 6TB now
> (going up to around 12 or so soon). You might want to talk to EMC and/or
> IBM, both of whom have *extremely* large filers.
from my experiences with
TECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Extremely large (70TB) File system/server planning
> >
> > :| > The files are accessed approximately 3 or 4 times a day on average.
> > :| > Older files are archived for reference purpose and may never
> >
>While talking to a friend about what his company is planning to do,
>I found out that he is planning a 70TB filesystem/servers/cluster/db.
>(Yes, seventy t-e-r-a-b-y-t-e...)
We could do this using about 44 of the not-yet-announced TSR-3100 fibre
channel RAID storage systems. These are 1.8TB (
Besides what platform you decide to run this on, remember that 70TB will put
off a surprising amount of heat. Plan your HVAC carefully.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
: Mike Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:52 PM
To: Matt Dillon
Cc: Michael C . Wu; Mitch Collinsworth; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extremely large (70TB) File system/server planning
>
> :| > The files are accessed approximately 3 o
>
> :| > The files are accessed approximately 3 or 4 times a day on average.
> :| > Older files are archived for reference purpose and may never
> :| > be accessed after a week.
> :|
> :| Ok, this is a start. Now is the 70 TB the size of the active files?
> :| Or does that also include the olde
:2^31 x 512 bytes = 1 TB on Intel boxes. Our NFS implementation has the
:same per-filesystem limitation. Theoretically UFS/FFS are limited
Oops. I meant, per-file limitation for NFS clients, not per-filesystem.
1TB per file.
-Ma
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:50:35AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :70TB is the size of the sum of all files, access or no access.
> :(They still want to maintain accessibility even though the chances are slim.)
>
> This doesn't sound like something you can just throw together with
> off-the-
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:47:58AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
> | On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> | > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:39:02AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
> | > | You didn't say what applications this thing is
:| > The files are accessed approximately 3 or 4 times a day on average.
:| > Older files are archived for reference purpose and may never
:| > be accessed after a week.
:|
:| Ok, this is a start. Now is the 70 TB the size of the active files?
:| Or does that also include the older archived fil
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:47:58AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
| On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
| > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:39:02AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
| > | You didn't say what applications this thing is going to support.
| > | That does matter. A lot. On
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:39:02AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
> | You didn't say what applications this thing is going to support.
> | That does matter. A lot. One thing worth looking at is AFS,
> | or maybe MR-AFS. And now OpenAFS.
>
> H
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> While talking to a friend about what his company is planning to do,
> I found out that he is planning a 70TB filesystem/servers/cluster/db.
> (Yes, seventy t-e-r-a-b-y-t-e...)
>
> Apparently, he has files that go up to 2gb each,
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:39:02AM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth scribbled:
| You didn't say what applications this thing is going to support.
| That does matter. A lot. One thing worth looking at is AFS,
| or maybe MR-AFS. And now OpenAFS.
He has database(s) of graphics simulation results. i.e. l
> What would you guys do in this case? :)
I'd call up my friendly regional SGI, Sun, IBM, and Compaq reps
and have them put together proposals. I'm a former SGI guy and
know that we've had a bunch of installations of this size and larger
(much larger). It's not that big a deal any more. I don'
NetApp filers? And what exactly is too costly? He's got enormous costs
just in doing backups of this thing, and the savings in using NetApp
filers for doing "snapshots" instead of standard backups will buy you
some disk in the end...
What is this data used for? Archival? How oft is it accessed? H
You didn't say what applications this thing is going to support.
That does matter. A lot. One thing worth looking at is AFS,
or maybe MR-AFS. And now OpenAFS.
-Mitch
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> While talking to a friend about what his company is planning
Hello Everyone,
While talking to a friend about what his company is planning to do,
I found out that he is planning a 70TB filesystem/servers/cluster/db.
(Yes, seventy t-e-r-a-b-y-t-e...)
Apparently, he has files that go up to 2gb each, and actually require
such a horribly sized cluster.
If he
24 matches
Mail list logo
