On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Hoskins, Matthew <[email protected]> wrote:
> · Many fileservers / smaller fileservers: This philosophy has > evolved as we have moved more into virtualized fileservers. With physical > hardware you are limited by ABILITY TO PURCHASE. Meaning, you can only get > “x” number of servers of “n” size. This means if you want highly resilient > servers, you can only afford to by a few of them. This can lead to very > fat fileservers. If you go for many cheap fileservers, you might be able > to get more distributed but end up suffering more small individual outages. > With virtualized fileservers you have full flexibility. On the virtual > platform, you get HA by default on every VM. After that you get to design > your fileserver layout decisions based on the DATA they will store. For > example, in our layout we have the following classes of fileservers: > > o Infrastructure (INF) Fileservers: Very small fileserver, for highly > critical root.*, software, etc. the “bones” of the cell. Replicated of > course. > > o User fileservers (USR): Home volumes, nuff said > > o Bulk Fileservers (BLK): Almost everything else, projects, web content, > research data, yadda yadda > > o Jumbo Fileservers (JMB): Used for ridiculously large volumes. These > fileservers are the only fileserver that has a VARIABLE vicep partition > size. Used for archival data and some research projects. > Matt, What do you use for vicep* partition sizes? Thanks, _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
