Miles Nordin wrote:
"et" == Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@sun.com> 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 same role: fishworks clustering is based on SAS
multi-initiator, on SAS fan...uh,...fan-in? switches, while OP's
home-rolled cluster plan was based on copying the data to another
zpool. remember pricing is based on ``market forces'': it's not dumb,
is the opposite of dumb, but...under ``market forces'' pricing if you
are paying for clever-schemes you can't use, YHL.
No, 6% LESS for the 7310 solution, vs the dual x4540 solution.
The key here is Usable disk space. Yes, the X4540 comes with 2x the
disk space, but having to cluster them via non-shared storage, you
effectively eliminate that advantage. Not to mention that expanding a
clustered X4540 either means you have to buy 2x the required storage
(i.e. attach another array to each x4540), or you do the exact same
thing as with a 7310 (i.e. dual-attach an array to both).
You certainly are paying some premium for the A-R software; however, I
was stating the worst-case scenario where he finds he can't make use of
the A-R software. He's still left with a hardware solution that is
superior to the dual X4540 (in my opinion). That is, software aside,
my opinion is that a clustered X4140 with shared J4400 chassis is a
better idea than "redundant" X4540 setup. With or without the AR
software. The AR software just makes the configuration of the 7310
extremely simple, which is no small win in and of itself.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
