On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Lyle Seaman wrote:
> replicated elsewhere. At the present time, I don't know of anyone who
> stores more than 60 GB of unreplicated read-write data on a single
> fileserver. (Here's where everyone chimes in and tells me otherwise :-)
>
You knew it was going to happen: we do! Not 500, though.
> I would also be sure that it is stored in a hot-swappable RAID storage
> system. You have to worry, not only about the time to restore from tape,
> but also the time to (maybe) fsck, (maybe) salvage, and (definitely)
> attach all that data when a server restarts.
>
fsck and salvage times are perhaps not blazingly fast but still orders of
magnitude faster than reloading from tape.
'attach' time *is* a nuisance - in particular since (luckily!) this is
something that we encounter much more frequently than fsck and salvage. In
order to restart a fileserver it first has to go down piecefully, something
that can easily take 5 minutes during which volumes are simply not accessible
:-(. Startup is even slower, typically 10-15 minutes on a bigger server but
at least users get 'waiting for busy volume' and no 'no such device'-rubbish
as in the first case.
Having said this: the original question was about a 500 GB fileserver. As
far as I understand restart time is governed by number of volumes to
attach - one could cut down on those by making each one 2 GB and bigger.
We have seen occasions on which somthing like that does not sound
ridiculous.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rainer Toebbicke http://wwwcn1.cern.ch/~rtb -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] O__
European Laboratory for Particle Physics(CERN) - Geneva, Switzerland > |
Phone: +41 22 767 8985 Fax: +41 22 767 7155 ( )\( )
