I would suggest splitting it when you can¹t meet your recovery time objective for the server if it tanks completely. It depends completely on how fast you can recover.
Consider also that there may be logical break points in the directory tree that you could address using the Microsoft DFS extensions to CIFS (which is supported by Samba). That would partially hide the seams between servers and let you keep the size of an individual server managing a part of the directory tree under the recovery objective time while still presenting the illusion of a single server to clients. You might also consider using a different back end data store, like OpenAFS or Lustre, which have CIFS front-ends but have much better data management capabilities behind them. On 1/21/09 3:34 PM, "Dean, David (I/S)" <david_d...@bcbst.com> wrote: > We have a virtual zLinux SUSE 10.1 file server on zVM 5.2 that currently > supplies over 600 Gigs of DASD (SAMBA 3 file storage) to end users. Is there > a point (technical or logical) when we should build a second server rather > than continuing to grow this server? > > Thanks > > David Dean > Information Systems > *bcbstauthorized* > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail > disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm >
