2011-10-16 4:14, Tim Cook wrote:
Quite frankly your choice in blade chassis was a horrible design decision. From your description of its limitations it should never be the building block for a vmware cluster in the first place. I would start by rethinking that decision instead of trying to pound a round ZFS peg into a square hole.


Point taken ;)

Alas, quite often, it is not us engineers that make designs but a mix of bookkeeping folks and vendor marketing.

The MFSYS boxes are pushed by Intel or its partners as a good VMWare farm in a box - and for that it works well. As long as storage capacity on board (4.2TB with basic 300Gb drives, or more with larger ones, or even expanded with extSAS) is sufficient, the chassis is not "a building block" of the VMWare cluster. It is the cluster, all of it. The box has many HA features, including dual-link SAS, redundant storage and networking controllers, and stuff. It is just not very expansible. But relatively cheap, which as I said is an important factor for many.

For our company as software service vendors it is also suitable - the customer buys almost a preconfigured appliance, plugs in power and an ethernet uplink, and things magically work. This requires little to no skill from customers' IT people (won't always say they are "admins") to maintain, and there are no intricate external connections to break off...

For relatively small offices, 20 external gigabit ports of two managed switch modules can also become the networking core for the deployment site.


zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to