Get the 7310 setup. Vs. the X4540 it is: (1) less configuration on your clients (2) instant failover with no intervention on your part (3) less expensive (4) expandable to 3x your current disk space (5) lower power draw & less rack space (6) So Simple, A Caveman Could Do It (tm)
-Erik On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 14:46 -0500, Len Zaifman wrote: > I asked this question a week ago but now I have what I feel are reasonable > pricing numbers : > > For 2 X4540s (24 TB each) I pay 6% more than for one 7310 redundant cluster > (2 7310s in a cluster configuration) with 22 TB of disk and 2 x 18 GB SSDs. > > I lose live redundancy, but can switch the filerserver serving nodes with a > short downtime if I have 2 X4540s. > > I have a live copy of 1/2 the disk on one file server and a backup copy of > the other half of the disk on the same fileserver. The second server then has > the other half live , and the first half mirrored. > > So I now have 2 disk paths and two network paths as opposed to only one in > the 7310 cluster. > > Under these circumstances what advantage would a 7310 cluster over 2 X4540s > backing each other up and splitting the load? > Len Zaifman > Systems Manager, High Perime formance Systems > The Centre for Computational Biology > The Hospital for Sick Children > 555 University Ave. > Toronto, Ont M5G 1X8 > > tel: 416-813-5513 > email: leona...@sickkids.ca > ________________________________________ -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
