On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Andy Lubel wrote: > Looks like its completely scalable but your boot time may suffer the more > you have. Just don't reboot :)
I'm not sure if it's accurate, but the SE we were meeting with claimed that we could failover all of the filesystems to one half of the cluster, reboot the other half, fail them back, reboot the first half, and have rebooted both cluster members with no downtime. I guess as long as the active cluster member does not fail during the potentially lengthy downtime of the one rebooting. > If it was so great why did IBM kill it? I often daydreamed of a group of high-level IBM executives tied to chairs next to a table filled with rubber hoses ;), for the sole purpose of getting that answer. I think they killed it because the market of technically knowledgeable and capable people that were able to use it to its full capacity was relatively limited, and the average IT shop was happy with Windoze :(. > Did they have an alternative with the same functionality? No, not really. Depending on your situation, they recommended transitioning to GPFS or NFSv4, but neither really met the same needs as DFS. > I really have to disagree, we have 6120 and 6130's and if I had the option > to actually plan out some storage I would have just bought a thumper. You > could probably buy 2 for the cost of that 6140. Thumper = x4500, right? You can't really cluster the internal storage of an x4500, so assuming high reliability/availability was a requirement that sort of rules that box out. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
