Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:10:29 -0800 From: "Matthew Jacob" <lydianconcepts@gmail.com> To: "Tom Samplonius" <tom@uniserve.com> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Qlogic fibre channel support questions Message-ID: <7579f7fb0602272110h2782fde8w434b80436a6a0d81@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060227101531.L90562@mgmt.uniserve.ca> References: <20060206132947.O89934@mgmt.uniserve.ca> <7579f7fb0602270144s231256b6ta40c6a0eedb10b5a@mail.gmail.com> <20060227101531.L90562@mgmt.uniserve.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Okay- let me ask why diskless booting doesn't work for you? I'm playing diabocolus advocatus here because to me SANs are so unforgiving that trying to boot off of them often leads one into the situation that the systems can't run long enough to tell you they can't run because the SAN is AFU. Anyway- enough of this. It's what you want, and its reasonable. Dunno what you meant about the license- don't tell me one of the switch vendors is slicing and dicing costs based upon zone size? Grrr..... On 2/27/06, Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > Why do you want to boot from SAN? Don't the blades have space for a > > local boot disk? > > > IBM blades do not have hotswappable drives on the blades. So you have = to > remove the blade to get at the drives. Plus, the drives pump up the chas= sis > power consumption as well. (Well, there is SCSI side-car option, but it = eats up > a blade slot.) > > So consolidating all storage on the SAN, make sense. Managing a bunch = of 10GB > boot LUNs is going to easier than dealing with 28 physical drives (2 per = blade). > I can put a pair of mirrored 146GB disks on the SAN, and slice out 10GB p= er > blade. It is even a bit cheaper, including the SAN 64 partition licence. > > Tom >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7579f7fb0602272110h2782fde8w434b80436a6a0d81>