On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Ian Collins <i...@ianshome.com> wrote: > On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla<evaldas.aur...@edqm.eu> wrote: >>> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster; >>>>> and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav >>>>> out of the box. >>>>> >>>>> And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers, >>>>> once they are decoupled from the storage servers. >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't seem like much of a drawback -- although it >>>>> may be for some smaller sites. I see AR clusters going in >>>>> in local high schools and small universities. >>>>> >>>> Which is all fine and dandy if you have a green field, or are willing to >>>> re-architect your systems. We just wanted to add a couple more x4540s! >>> Hi, same here, it's a sad news that Oracle decided to stop x4540s >>> production line. Before, ZFS geeks had choice - buy 7000 series if you want >>> quick "out of the box" storage with nice GUI, or build your own storage >>> with x4540 line, which by the way has brilliant engineering design, the >>> choice is gone now. >> Okay, so what is the great advantage >> of an X4540 versus X86 server plus >> disk array(s)? >> > One less x86 box (even more of an issue now we have to mortgage the children > for support), a lot less $. > > Not to mention an existing infrastructure built using X4540s and me looking a > fool explaining to the client they can't get any more so the systems we have > spent two years building up are a dead end. > > One size does not fit all, choice is good for business.
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me, we'd still be selling those boxes. Mark > > -- > Ian. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
