> I'm relatively new to the afs environment. Everything you outlined in your
> message made sense, however I'm curious about your recommendation of having AFS
> DB servers provide only DB services. What about having these do AFS file
> services also? I recently raised this same question to Transarc, and their
> response was "most sites run AFS file services on the DB systems as it is not
> cost effective to buy a server license for just DB services". Cost is a factor
> for us, but performance is paramount.
I think a lot depends on the size of your site (cell). We run the
database servers separate from the file servers; three identical RS/6K
model 350's all on different subnets. Whenever possible (usually
based on cost) we like to segregate functionality (via hardware) for
important services. In other words, if a DB server goes down, that's
the only thing that is wiped out. And since we run 3, we don't really
notice this!
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Fagan | IBM Research
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.watson.ibm.com/~mfagan
----------------------------------------------------------
