On 02/28/2014 06:30 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
>> I'd highly recommend getting a NetApp storage device for something that big.
>>
>> It's more expensive up front, but the amount of heartache/time saved in the
>> long run is WELL worth it.
>>
On 28.02.2014 13:15, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote:
> Hi,
>
> over time the requirements and possibilities regarding filesystems
> changed for our users.
>
> currently I'm faced with the question:
>
> What might be a good way to provide one big filesystem for a few users
> which could als
- Original Message -
| Hi,
|
| over time the requirements and possibilities regarding filesystems
| changed for our users.
|
| currently I'm faced with the question:
|
| What might be a good way to provide one big filesystem for a few
| users
| which could also be enlarged; backuping the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator
>
> What might be a good way to provide one big filesystem for a few users
> which could also be enlarged; backuping the data is not the question.
Really? Does that mean you already have a backup, don't care if you
lose it, or that y
On 02/28/2014 08:15 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote:
> ...
> Big in that context is up to couple of 100 TB may be.
>
> ...
> From my POV I could e.g. use hardware raidboxes, and use LVM and
> filesystem growth options to extend the final share, but what if one of
> the boxes crash totally
Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator a écrit :
> Hi,
>
If you are to have an ever-growing volume, I’d suggest some
distributed FS, like glusterfs, moosefs, lustre…
You need more space ? Add a box.
We do use happily moosefs at work for a couple years (begun with a
couple TB, now up to 250).
HTH
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> I'd highly recommend getting a NetApp storage device for something that big.
>
> It's more expensive up front, but the amount of heartache/time saved in the
> long run is WELL worth it.
>
My vote would be for a ZFS-based storage solution
I'd highly recommend getting a NetApp storage device for something that big.
It's more expensive up front, but the amount of heartache/time saved in the
long run is WELL worth it.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator <
goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
over time the requirements and possibilities regarding filesystems
changed for our users.
currently I'm faced with the question:
What might be a good way to provide one big filesystem for a few users
which could also be enlarged; backuping the data is not the question.
Big in that context i
9 matches
Mail list logo