Miles Nordin wrote:
"et" == Erik Trimble writes:
et> I'd still get the 7310 hardware.
et> Worst case scenario is that you can blow away the AmberRoad
okay but, AIUI he was saying pricing is 6% more for half as much
physical disk. This is also why it ``uses less energy''
> "et" == Erik Trimble writes:
et> I'd still get the 7310 hardware.
et> Worst case scenario is that you can blow away the AmberRoad
okay but, AIUI he was saying pricing is 6% more for half as much
physical disk. This is also why it ``uses less energy'' while
supposedly filling the s
Erik Trimble wrote:
Miles Nordin wrote:
"lz" == Len Zaifman writes:
lz> So I now have 2 disk paths and two network paths as opposed to
lz> only one in the 7310 cluster.
You're configuring all your failover on the client, so the HA stuff is
stateless wrt the server? so
Miles Nordin wrote:
"lz" == Len Zaifman writes:
lz> So I now have 2 disk paths and two network paths as opposed to
lz> only one in the 7310 cluster.
You're configuring all your failover on the client, so the HA stuff is
stateless wrt the server? sounds like the smart w
> "lz" == Len Zaifman writes:
lz> So I now have 2 disk paths and two network paths as opposed to
lz> only one in the 7310 cluster.
You're configuring all your failover on the client, so the HA stuff is
stateless wrt the server? sounds like the smart way since you control
both ends
Get the 7310 setup. Vs. the X4540 it is:
(1) less configuration on your clients
(2) instant failover with no intervention on your part
(3) less expensive
(4) expandable to 3x your current disk space
(5) lower power draw & less rack space
(6) So Simple, A Caveman Could Do It (tm)
-Erik
On Mon,
On Nov 23, 2009, at 14:46, Len Zaifman wrote:
Under these circumstances what advantage would a 7310 cluster over 2
X4540s backing each other up and splitting the load?
Do you want to worry about your storage system at 3 AM?
That's what all these appliances (regardless of vendor) get you for
Len Zaifman wrote:
Under these circumstances what advantage would a 7310 cluster over 2 X4540s backing each other up and splitting the load?
FISH! My wife could drive a
7310 :-)
www.eagle.co.nz
This email is confidential and may be legally
privileged. If received in error plea
If the 7310s can meet your performance expectations, they sound much better
than a pair of x4540s. Auto-fail over, SSD performance (although these can be
added to the 4540s), ease of management, and a great front end.
I haven't seen if you can use your backup software with the 7310s, but from
I asked this question a week ago but now I have what I feel are reasonable
pricing numbers :
For 2 X4540s (24 TB each) I pay 6% more than for one 7310 redundant cluster
(2 7310s in a cluster configuration) with 22 TB of disk and 2 x 18 GB SSDs.
I lose live redundancy, but can switch the filer
mof...@sun.com] On Behalf Of Darren J
Moffat [darr...@opensolaris.org]
Sent: November 18, 2009 12:10 PM
To: Len Zaifman
Cc: storage-disc...@opensolaris.org; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] X45xx storage vs 7xxx Unified storage
Len Zaifman wrote:
> We are looking at addi
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Len Zaifman wrote:
We are looking at adding to our storage. We would like ~20TB-30 TB.
we have ~ 200 nodes (1100 cores) to feed data to using nfs, and we
are looking for high reliability, good performance (up to at least
350 MBytes /second over 10 GigE connection) and
I don't wish to hijack, but along these same comparing lines, is there
anyone able to compare the 7200 to the HP LeftHand series? I'll start
another thread if this goes too far astray.
thx
jake
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Len Zaifman wrote:
We are looking at adding to our storage. We would li
Len Zaifman wrote:
We are looking at adding to our storage. We would like ~20TB-30 TB.
we have ~ 200 nodes (1100 cores) to feed data to using nfs, and we are
looking for high reliability, good performance (up to at least 350 MBytes
/second over 10 GigE connection) and large capacity.
For th
14 matches
Mail list logo
