On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:33:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2018 15:01:55 -0400, "Marc A Kaplan" said:
>
> > I see there are also low-power / zero-power disk archive/arrays available.
> > Any experience with those?
>
> The last time I looked at those (which was a
On Wed, 09 May 2018 15:01:55 -0400, "Marc A Kaplan" said:
> I see there are also low-power / zero-power disk archive/arrays available.
> Any experience with those?
The last time I looked at those (which was a few years ago) they were
competitive
with tape for power consumption, but not on cost
+1 for benefits of tape and also power consumption/heat production (may help a
case to management) is obviously better with things that don’t have to be
spinning all the time.
>
> At scale tape is a lot cheaper than disk. Also sorry your data is going
> to take a couple of weeks to recover
Not sure if the topic is appropriate, but I know an installation case
which employs IBM Spectrum Scale's snapshot function along with IBM
Spectrum Protect to save the backup date onto LTO7 tape media. Both
software components running on Linux on Power (RHEL 7.3 BE) if that
matters. Of course,
I agree with your points.
The thought here, is that if we had a complete loss of the primary site, we
could bring up the secondary in relatively short order (hours or days instead
of weeks or months). Maybe this is true, and maybe this isn’t, though I do see
(and have advocated for) a DR
On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 12:50 +, Andrew Beattie wrote:
>
> From my perspective the difference / benefits of using something like
> Protect and using backup policies over snapshot policies - even if
> its disk based rather than tape based, is that with a backup you get
> far better control
From my perspective the difference / benefits of using something like Protect and using backup policies over snapshot policies - even if its disk based rather than tape based, is that with a backup you get far better control over your Disaster Recovery process. The policy integration with Scale
Our existing environments are using Scale+Protect with tape. Management wants
us to move away from tape where possible.
We do one filesystem per cluster. So, there will be two new clusters.
We are still finalizing the sizing, but the expectation is both of them will be
somewhere in the3-5PB
