Les Mikesell wrote:
But, I think the OP's real problem is that everything is tied to one
single large drive (i.e. the software mirroring is mostly irrelevant as
...
I think that Les makes a good point, and I'd like to push the point even
more generally: providing network file storage, via SAN
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gordon McLellan wrote:
>>
>> Les,
>>
>> That's pretty much my problem. I was hoping to kill two birds with
>> one stone here. First order of business is to replace the single
>> drive with a raid array. Second order was to
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
While SATA and SAS are *supposed* to be able to be mixed freely, my
vendor has warned me that it doesn't always work out that well. They
have seen compatibility issues using SATA drives on SAS controllers.
So for applications where you want/need a SAS controller but
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 at 4:22pm, nate wrote
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
While SATA and SAS are *supposed* to be able to be mixed freely, my vendor
has warned me that it doesn't always work out that well. They have seen
compatibility issues using SATA drives on SAS controllers. So for
application
thad wrote:
> HP-EVA controller runs on WIN2K, and you have all the inherent problems of
> why we are staying away from winbloze... ssu scripting is a pain in the
> neck
On the topic of enterprise storage arrays I'm pretty excited
today I'm having a 150TB 3PAR T400 virtualized storage array
bein
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> While SATA and SAS are *supposed* to be able to be mixed freely, my vendor
> has warned me that it doesn't always work out that well. They have seen
> compatibility issues using SATA drives on SAS controllers. So for
> applications where you want/need a SAS controlle
>
>
>
> If you have a "real" SAN (HP EVA), you can buy block-level
> replication-software for that.
> But the software is not exactly cheap (six-figure-sum budget expected).
> What does downtime cost for you?
HP-EVA controller runs on WIN2K, and you have all the inherent problems of
why we are s
Am 07.11.2008 um 23:35 schrieb nate:
Gordon McLellan wrote:
I guess I'm saying, if you interpret the name "Serial Attached Scsi"
literally, then the Seagate ES.2 is not an SAS drive - it is not a
scsi drive with a serial interface. However, if you interpret SAS as
an interface standard, then
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:46:36PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 at 2:35pm, nate wrote
>
>> Gordon McLellan wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I'm saying, if you interpret the name "Serial Attached Scsi"
>>> literally, then the Seagate ES.2 is not an SAS drive - it is not a
>>> scsi dri
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 at 2:35pm, nate wrote
Gordon McLellan wrote:
I guess I'm saying, if you interpret the name "Serial Attached Scsi"
literally, then the Seagate ES.2 is not an SAS drive - it is not a
scsi drive with a serial interface. However, if you interpret SAS as
an interface standard, t
Gordon McLellan wrote:
> I guess I'm saying, if you interpret the name "Serial Attached Scsi"
> literally, then the Seagate ES.2 is not an SAS drive - it is not a
> scsi drive with a serial interface. However, if you interpret SAS as
> an interface standard, then the interface board determines wh
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>> http://www.openfiler.com/products
>>
>> For me I would just buy a real storage array, better reliability
>> generally. Though entry level pricing is around $20k.
> 2x machines to give a network RAID setup. What would you recommend
> using? The idea is to serve to servers whic
Gordon McLellan wrote:
Les,
That's pretty much my problem. I was hoping to kill two birds with
one stone here. First order of business is to replace the single
drive with a raid array. Second order was to replace a single iscsi
server with duo of machines. If one machine had some sort of
non
Jerry Franz wrote:
Indeed. They're not SAS either.
From the manufacturer's page: "Barracuda ES.2 SAS 3.0-Gb/s 1-TB Hard
Drive"
Sure sounds like SAS to me. What leads you to believe they are not
being truthful?
its a typo on that page, probably.
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/
Reading the datasheet, my interpretation is Seagate has taken a ide
drive chassis (7200rpm, PMR, slow seek times, etc) and added a SAS
interface board. They mention the sas version offers improved
performance over the sata version, and also the sas version supports a
dual-port interface. Other mo
Gordon McLellan schrieb:
> Les,
>
> That's pretty much my problem. I was hoping to kill two birds with
> one stone here. First order of business is to replace the single
> drive with a raid array. Second order was to replace a single iscsi
> server with duo of machines. If one machine had some
Les,
That's pretty much my problem. I was hoping to kill two birds with
one stone here. First order of business is to replace the single
drive with a raid array. Second order was to replace a single iscsi
server with duo of machines. If one machine had some sort of
non-recoverable problem, the
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Gordon McLellan wrote:
I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
tiny version of their huge url:
http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
Indeed. They're not SAS either.
Fro
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Gordon McLellan wrote:
I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
tiny version of their huge url:
http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
Indeed. They're not SAS either.
Steve
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:49:22AM -0500, Gordon McLellan wrote:
Ray,
I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
tiny version of their huge url:
http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
-Gordon
Gordon McLellan wrote:
Ray,
I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
tiny version of their huge url:
http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
But, I think the OP's real problem is that everything is tied to one
sin
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:49:22AM -0500, Gordon McLellan wrote:
> Ray,
>
> I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
> tiny version of their huge url:
>
> http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
>
> No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
>
> -Gordon
Ah. S
So the short answers are:
1) centos/redhat possess no built-in means of block-level replication
via GFS / RHCS
2) openfiler provides some manor of block-level replication
3) there's "beta" software out there that can do it, but it might not
be a good idea for production (drbd)
Just for reference;
Ray,
I meant SAS; specifically Seagate Barracuda ES.2 drives. Here's a
tiny version of their huge url:
http://tiny.cc/3X9fI
No, they are not the super fast and expensive 15krpm database drives.
-Gordon
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Ray Van Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm guessing
> >>> Hello List,
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone recommend some sites regarding building
> high-availability
> >>> storage networks using centos (or the upstream providers
> brand name)?
> >>> I need to have approx 2-3 tb of storage available via
> iscsi and smb,
> >>> but worry about having it all on a
Gordon McLellan schrieb:
> So the short answers are:
>
> 1) centos/redhat possess no built-in means of block-level replication
> via GFS / RHCS
> 2) openfiler provides some manor of block-level replication
> 3) there's "beta" software out there that can do it, but it might not
> be a good idea for
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:18:02AM -0500, Gordon McLellan wrote:
> So the short answers are:
>
> 1) centos/redhat possess no built-in means of block-level replication
> via GFS / RHCS
> 2) openfiler provides some manor of block-level replication
> 3) there's "beta" software out there that can do i
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Rainer Duffner
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:34 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] HA Storage Cookbook?
Rudi Ahlers schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:27 PM, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
Rudi Ahlers schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:27 PM, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McLellan wrote:
>>
>>> Hello List,
>>>
>>> Can anyone recommend some sites regarding building high-availability
>>> storage networks using centos (or the upstream providers brand name)?
>>> I
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:27 PM, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gordon McLellan wrote:
>> Hello List,
>>
>> Can anyone recommend some sites regarding building high-availability
>> storage networks using centos (or the upstream providers brand name)?
>> I need to have approx 2-3 tb of storage avai
Gordon McLellan wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> Can anyone recommend some sites regarding building high-availability
> storage networks using centos (or the upstream providers brand name)?
> I need to have approx 2-3 tb of storage available via iscsi and smb,
> but worry about having it all on a single se
Hello List,
Can anyone recommend some sites regarding building high-availability
storage networks using centos (or the upstream providers brand name)?
I need to have approx 2-3 tb of storage available via iscsi and smb,
but worry about having it all on a single server. Most of the HA
articles I'm
32 matches
Mail list logo
