Paul B. Henson wrote: > Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the > x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the > models that allows connecting dual clustered heads and failing over the > storage between them? > > I agree the x4500 is a sweet looking box, but when making price comparisons > sometimes it's more than just the raw storage... I wish I could just drop > in a couple of x4500's and not have to worry about the complexity of > clustering <sigh>... >
It is configured with SATA drives and does support failover for NFS. iSCSI is another story at the moment. The x4500 is very sweet and the only thing stopping us from buying two instead of another shelf is the fact that we have lost pools on Sol10u3 servers and there is no easy way of making two pools redundant (ie the complexity of clustering.) Simply sending incremental snapshots is not a viable option. The pools we lost were pools on iSCSI (in a mirrored config) and they were mostly lost on zpool import/export. The lack of a recovery mechanism really limits how much faith we can put into our data on ZFS. It's safe as long as the pool is safe... but we've lost multiple pools. -Tim _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
