Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:09:04 +0000 From: Michal <michal@ionic.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi node storage, ZFS Message-ID: <4BAB2830.6010801@ionic.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100325085445.GA89466@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> References: <4BAA3409.6080406@ionic.co.uk> <b269bc571003240920r3c06a67ci1057921899c36637@mail.gmail.com> <hoe355$tuk$1@dough.gmane.org> <4BAAA415.1000804@ionic.co.uk> <20100325085445.GA89466@hugo10.ka.punkt.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/03/2010 08:54, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Hi, all, > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:45:25PM +0000, Michal wrote: >> I am thinking a cheap solution but one that >> has IO throughput, redundancy and is easy to manange and expand across >> multiple nodes > > Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two. > > IMHO this is just as true today as it was twenty years ago. > > Best regards, > Patrick I will never get what you would get by spending a lot of money, by doing it on the cheap. But yes I agree to a certain extent, it's still expensive and out of the SMB reach >If you want an appliance, a Sun/Oracle 7000 series may be close: > >http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/open-storage/ > >The 7310 allows for two active-active heads, with fail over if one >dies. Does NFS, SMB/CIFS, and iSCSI; the newest software release >(2010.Q1) gives SAN functionality so you can export LUNs via FC if you >purchase the optional HBAs. There are cheaper options yes I agree, but I think even that might be out of my budget. I've been fighting for months. Time is ok as a factor, learning it only helps me in the long run so it's win win for me. I, too, am still unsure how Oracle buy out will effect Sun...I'm not optimistic though...I'm expecting to move off MySQL at some point, when I don't know but I think I will be forced to for some reason or another
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BAB2830.6010801>