On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Randall S. Winchester wrote:
>
> We would like to add RAID to our AFS fileservers which house our "user"
> volumes, since they can not be replicated. I would like to hear from
> others who have already done or tried this. I am interested in opinions
> and knowledge of hardware and or software combinations that do or do not
> work.
>
> I need over 100 gig of storage just to accomidate our current "user"
> usage. Currently 5 sparcstations are handleing the load. I would like to
> get a RAID box that can handle multiple controllers so I can still let
> multiple hosts split the load. This would be similar to getting a number
> of smaller RAID systems, but the cost for the larger inclosures is
> insignificant. This way I can share a number of the redundant pieces
> amongst multiple systems. The cost for the extra controllers per host
> would be the main additional cost.
We currently use Solstice Disk Suite on the Suns as our AFS file servers.
RAID works just fine under AFS, as long as you continue to use on eof hte
supported file system structures. So basically there's no reason why
you shouldn't be able to use RAID, either in hardware or software, to keep
your AFS volumes.
>
> My inclination is to use Solaris 2.5 SparcStations with the DEC
> StorageWorks product. It looks like much more of a hardware solution then
> Suns Open Disk Suite (ODS) that appears to do more in software (on the
> sparcstation). ODS reminds me of the Sparc printer which also uses the
> sparcstation for much of its printer processing. I would prefer to let
> separate hardware handle most of both of these tasks.
The overhead for doing the RAID in software on a typical AFS server isn't
really very high. Note that you won't be able to use Solaris 2.5 very well
currently as the only Solaris 2.5 AFS port is in beta and is really not
quite ready for use, though it should release near the end of March.
>
> I also plan to have FDDI interfaces on these fileservers. Is there any
> reason why AFS will not take good advantage of the faster network access?
We use FDDI on our AFS servers. I believe you will find that the increase
in performance due to FDDI is pretty negligible. You WILL however, be
able to get a higher aggregate throughput through the interface. BUt
don't expect to see substantially higher file system performance on any
individual transfer.
>
> Anyhow, if any of you has experiences in this arena I would greatly
> appreciate your input.
>
> Thank you,
> Randall
>
Steve Hanson - FERMILAB, Batavia, Il.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
