On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Brett Rabe wrote:
True. But distinct separate RAID volumes with their own hot spares would be nice.
If only to reduce the reconstruction time for lost volumes....
Yes, that's especially of interest to those who have large 630 applications...
Straight mirrors....straight concatenating and striping...
So you'd want, essentially, two separate raid implementations?
Yup.
You'd want the existing Raid 4 protection as well as a pseudo- Raid 1 mirroring implementation to another separate NetApp chassis?
That would be nice.
Huh. Two thoughts. One -- overkill. Two -- you've got deeper pockets than I do. :-)
Why overkill? Seriously, some data is that important and some downtime scenarios are that costly. Believe me.
We're working on a project right now infact where losing data or data access for *minutes* would be a disaster.
As I said earlier: I still love NetApps and I'm asking the world ;-)
Nothing wrong with that. Yer a consumer, they're a provider.
:-)
-marc
--- Marc Nicholas - Hippocampus OSD, Inc. - Eastern Office 416 979 9000 - fax: 416 979 8223 - http://www.hippocampus.net 125 John St. - Suite #100 - Toronto - Ontario - M5V 2E2 - CANADA "Inter/Intra/Extra[net] consulting, corporate access, hardware and software sales"