Robert Milkowski wrote:
I think one should actually compare whole solutions - including servers,
fc infrastructure, tape drives, robots, software costs, rack space, ...
Servers like x4540 are ideal for zfs+rsync backup solution - very
compact, good $/GB ratio, enough CPU power for its capacity, allow to
easily scale it horizontally, and it is not too small and not too big.
Then thanks to its compactness they are very easy to administer.
Depending on an anvironment one could deploy them always in paris - one
in one datacenter and 2nd one in other datacanter with ZFS send based
replication of all backups (snapshots). Or one may replicate
(cross-replicate) only selected clients if needed.
Something else that often sells the 4500/4540 relates to internal
company politics. Often, inside a company storage has to be provisioned
from the company's storage group, using very expensive SAN based
storage, indeed so expensive by the time the company's storage group
have added their overhead onto the already expensive SAN, that whole
projects become unviable. Instead, teams find they can order 4500/4540's
which slip under the radar as servers (or even PCs), and they now have
affordable storage for their projects, which makes them viable once more.
--
Andrew
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
