Perhaps a better solution would be to front a J4500 with a pair of X4100s with Sun Cluster? Hrrm...
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Glaser, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As shipped, there our x4500 have 8 raidz pools with 6 disks each in them. If > spaced right, you can loose 6(?) disks without the pool dying. The root disk > is mirrored, so if one dies it's not the end of the world. With the exception > that grub is thoroughly fraked up in that if the 0 disk dies, you have to > manually make the darn thing boot. You can't hot swap CPU or memory, but you > can swap drives, fans, network links, and power supplies. > > With the rest of the hardware redundancy built in, they have been working > pretty well for us here. We did have some issues with a failure of the > machine (software related) but with a decent support contract, you should be > ok. > > Our windows group purchased their BlueArc san and spent 100k for 15TB > (raw)... I spent 50K for 33TB (useable)... > > > David > > > David Glaser > Systems Administrator > LSA Information Technology > University of Michigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Solaris > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 4:09 PM > To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: [zfs-discuss] Strategies to avoid single point of failure w/ X45x0 > Servers? > > I have been leading the charge in my IT department to evaluate the Sun > Fire X45x0 as a commodity storage platform, in order to leverage > capacity and cost against our current NAS solution which is backed by > EMC Fiberchannel SAN. For our corporate environments, it would seem > like a single machine would supply more than triple our current usable > capacity on our NAS, and the cost is significantly less per GB. I am > also working to prove the multi-protocol shared storage capabilities > of the Thumper significantly out perform those of our current solution > (which is notoriously bad from the end user perspective). > > The EMC solution is completely redundant with no single point of > failure. What are some good strategies for providing a Thumper > solution with no single point of failure? > > The storage folks are poo-poo'ing this concept because of the chances > for an Operating System failure... I'd like to come up with some > reasonable methods to put them in their place :) > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Ignorance: America's most abundant and costly commodity. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
