Richard Elling wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Now with thumper - you are SPoF'd on the motherboard and operating
system - so you're not really getting the availability aspect from
dual controllers .. but given the value - you could easily buy 2 and
still come out ahead .. you'd have to work out some sort of timely
replication of transactions between the 2 units and deal with failure
cases with something like a cluster framework.
No. Shared data clusters require that both nodes have access to the
storage. This is not the case for a thumper, where the disks are not
dual-ported and there is no direct access to the disks from an external
port. Thumper is not a conventional highly-redundant RAID array.
Comparing thumper to a SE3510 on a feature-by-feature basis is truly
like comparing apples and oranges.
Apples and pomegranates perhaps?
You could drop the iSCSI target on it and share the drives ala zvols.
The "what is an array, what is a server, what is both" discussion gets
interesting based on the qualities of the thing that holds the disks.
As far as SPOFs go, all systems which provide a single view of data
have at least one SPOF. Claiming a RAID array does not have a SPOF is
denying truth.
Its the amount of SPOFs and the overall reliability that I think
Jonathan was referring too. Of course, we're all systems folks so
component failure is always in the back of our mind, right? ;)
From a space perspective, I can put a TByte on my desktop today. Death
of the low-end array is assured by bigger drives.
Its a sliding window. What was midrange ten years ago is low-end or
desktop today in the capacity and many cases performance context.
Reliability and availability not so much.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
