On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:16:36 EST, Marc Nicholas wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Mike Horwath wrote:
- Single logical drive
Hassle but can be overcome with the quota tree implementation.
You can even dump seperate 'tree's.
True. But distinct separate RAID volumes with their own hot spares would be nice.
If only to reduce the reconstruction time for lost volumes....
- Weedy SCSI performance
How so?
We're living in the age of Wide Ultra SCSI. Maybe a NetApp engineer can comment on whether this would, or would not, make much of a real world performance. I was under the impression that you'd get more TPS...
- Lack of other RAID implementations
Uhm, what else do you want to do?
Straight mirrors....straight concatenating and striping...
So you'd want, essentially, two separate raid implementations? You'd want the existing Raid 4 protection as well as a pseudo- Raid 1 mirroring implementation to another separate NetApp chassis?
Huh. Two thoughts. One -- overkill. Two -- you've got deeper pockets than I do. :-)
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.
Brett
--- Brett Rabe Email : brett@uswest.net Systems Administrator - U S West Phone : 612.664.3078 600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : 612.613.2549 Minneapolis, MN USA 55413 Fax : 612.664.4770
If you aren't the lead dog, the view is always the same.