|
Intrepid00 posted:I seriously doubt now you are risk of a 2 day repair downtime and if you had to stay up and something extreamly bad happened to one of my nodes I'd remove the node from the cluster so the cluster would restrip and become redudant again if it went past 4 hours. Chucklehead posted:Let us know how it goes. Can both of you guys post your experiences, please? My company is in basically the same boat- narrowed down to either LeftHand or a lower-end NetApp. I'm very interested in any kind of feedback you have.
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2009 04:15 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 17:53 |
|
|
Number19 posted:I have one question about CIFS on NetApp: Am I able to make the filer look like more than one server to the users? Management would very much like to have a "server" for each project instead of \\server\project1, \\server\project2, etc. This sounds like an incredibly silly requirement that should be dropped if at all possible. The whole point of the SAN is that you can centralize your storage into one highly-available, easily manageable place and any solution that I can think of to do what you're asking won't be simple or scalable as the number of "servers" increases. If people seriously can't just deal with the one volume or share per project, they need to get over it. It will be more of a pain on the user side as well since no one will be able to just go to a single location like \\filer and be able to directly navigate a tree of open projects, they'll be stuck trying to do that in the domain-level view with every other PC on the network displayed along side a dozen pretend servers.
|
| # ¿ Apr 21, 2009 21:05 |
|
|
Maneki Neko posted:Got a friend who works at a place that has a fine NetApp setup, but through some shenanigans with a different storage vendor, they now have a giant pile of SATA drives, which he was looking to just throw in a giant case and use as a dumping ground for things (likely over NFS), with the expectation of eventually spooling it off to tape. We have a similar situation at my place. NetApp for the real stuff, but we use a ton of relatively low performance disk for backups and a variety of other needs. We have three of these: http://www.serversdirect.com/config...d=SDR-A8301-T42 And really, they're perfectly suited to the task though you could certainly spend a lot more money on something else (and of course you should if it's worth it for your scenario, but it's not in our particular case.) We load them up with CentOS and make big xfs partitions. vvv It definitely depends on what you're using them for, but we honestly haven't had any problems with them (much to my surprise, really.) AmericanCitizen fucked around with this message at Jul 16, 2010 around 03:58 |
| # ¿ Jul 16, 2010 03:41 |
|
