Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:49:16 -0600 From: Matt Schlosser <mschlosser@eschelon.com> To: 'Francisco Reyes' <fran@reyes.somos.net> Cc: "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Fire-wire/fiber/SCSI? Message-ID: <C1781C38F13DA040848FEFAD07311B105ECF04@walleye.corp.fishnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>This will be transferring large files. Some ranging in the GB range for a >>single file. >How do the files get to the main machine? >will most of the work be writting or reading off this box? The read/write will be done through a sort of modified sftp connection that is in the early stages of development. The read/write load should be fairly evenly balanced, maybe a slight more read than write, and there will be a fair amount of server-side file analysys. >>He (we) are trying to figure out if using a Netapp connected via: >> A) SCSI to single box is better >> B) Firewire connected to a single box or multiple will work >> C) Gigabit Eithernet to multiple boxes or single >I don't see what a Netapp would do for you. lots-o-storage (need multi-terrabyte), fast access. >How about getting an external SCSI160 enclosure with Cheeta's >X15 HDs on a switched Gigabit network. >The only problem with the X15's is that they are only 18G which >can be a problem in terms of how many you may need. They are, >however, the fastest drives on the block at 15,000RPM. We actually tossed that around, but at only 18G we would need a LOT of them (especially with mirroring) and that cost brings us right up to NetApp cost plus with that many, some are guaranteed to fail often. >A good configuration for the drives would be Raid 0+1, but that >is expensive. If mostly apps will be reading of the drive then >Raid 5 may do the trick. >Why don't you write to David Greenman(?), FreeBSD's main >architect. He builds high performance boxes. I think the URL for >his company is http://www.terrasolutions.com >He ought to be able to configure a good setup and may even be >able to configure the kernel for you so it screams. :-) >If redundancy is a high priority you can get an external box >with dual channel. FreeBSD will not be able to have two machines >connected to it at the same time, but at the touch of a button >you can switch to a second machine also attached to the external >box. Yes, redundancy will be a big priority. One of our main concerns is that this system must not go down, and especially must not lose any data, not even a little. I wonder if I can configure a machine to monitor the server and perform the switch automatically.... hmmm.... more projects to consider.... >Good luck. Thanks for the assistance. >francisco >Moderator of the Corporate BSD list >http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C1781C38F13DA040848FEFAD07311B105ECF04>