12 Dec
2006
12 Dec
'06
10:42 p.m.
Mostly because my budget for this sort of thing is somewhere between zero and zero + 15%.
I'm happy to hear about more expensive solutions for future reference though, just to know how other people deal with similar problems.
For example, in the last 10 years, we've had to re-ip our entire networks four or five times, couple of times due to acquisitions, others because the network infrastructure team decided things would be better if we re-architected everything. I've also dealt with about 4 or 5 server room moves in the same time period. Ironically, CIFS is never a problem in these scenarios, but NFS is frequently the cause of weeks of trickling-in problem reports and complaints.
--
Michael W. Sphar - IS&T - Lead Systems Administrator
SMBU Engineering Support Services, BMC Software
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Stephens [mailto:shawn174@houston.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Sphar, Mike; toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Re: AFS
If you're tired of the stale file handles, why not virtualize your
storage
behind an Acopia switch?
http://www.acopia.com
Shawn
On 12/12/06 1:00 PM, "Sphar, Mike" Mike_Sphar@bmc.com wrote:
> Just throwing a question out there curious to hear people's thoughts
or
> experiences. Every time I end up dealing with hundreds of stale file
> handles because of a server move/change I become increasingly annoyed
by
> the stateless nature of NFS and think to myself "Maybe this time I'll
> finally start seriously looking at AFS."
>
> Other than lots of other ways an AFS deployment could be complicated,
I
> wonder how if at all a Netapp can be part of an AFS deployment?
>
> Also feel free to tell me how using AFS is crazy in general and I
should
> just accept my stale file handles.