You're not talking nonsense at all. It's exactly the kind of statement
I was provoking.
(Just the term 'node' is from cluster terminology not AFS, but OK.
AFS doesn't care about nodes, there are only volumes on fileservers) :-)
Sorry yes, i originally approached this from a clustering perspective,
looking at GFS etc.
I don't really recommend that conversion of RO volumes to RWs for
backups. If you search the archives for that topic you'll find some of
my old statements regarding that.
IIRC I said something like: use that only if your disk is gone, like in
'the dog eat your harddisk'. (I didn't look it up ... ;-) )
Well it's more about redundancy, in a pinch I can deal without having to
do any sort of RAID5 network rubbish because 180 gig is more than
sufficient. Backups are done offsite anyway and performance isn't a
major issue. This is used to support a 24/7 callcentre, and the most
important thing is that if a disk were to fail and take a machine down,
we could bring up a replacement with as close to identical data as is
possible.
and transfer a lot of data over the network to those fileserver(s),
This isn't a major issue, the machines were originally specced to have a
second (gigabit) network card connected to their own gigabit switch / VLAN.
I suppose I should have just stated my requirements originally and
dispensed with all my 'smart ideas' :)
Paul
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
