Thanks. I thought that kind of smelled like marketing speak. :-) Still leaning heavily towards three single-controller SANs, with two in an HA configuration and a third at a D/R site. :-) Silicon Mechanics prices are such that I should be able to do that well under my $30K ceiling. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: N Parr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:23 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question See here's what I'm not sure of. Even in a dual controller box if the controllers have their own cache and one has a catastrophic failure you're going to loose whatever wasn't committed and still sitting in cache. I don't think you will find that this keep many people up at night worrying. -----Original Message----- From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Quoting N Parr <[email protected]>: > That's sounds like one straight off BOFH of the day. How could there > be "cache coherency" between controllers in two physically different > boxes to begin with. > I think that's the point. With a dual-controller box, you'd have cache-coherency, right, but with two boxes, and separate controllers in each, you'd have no coherency. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
