+--- In our lifetime, kls@netapp.com (Karl Swartz) wrote: | | > I believe this is due to file system limitations; the 220 was limited | > to 50G, the 330 to 100G. Only the 540's were to be able to raise the | > file system limit by using 9G drives. | | Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the F540 is similarly limited to 200GB.
When we purchased the initial f540's, we were told the opposite. The story was, once the 9GB drives were available for end users, f540 owners would be able to double their file system.
Of course, this was way before the 630 was ever talked about.
I need distributed writes more than anything else right now. 200GB is plenty of for now :)
Actually, where does the f540 fall now? From looking at the docs on the web http://www.netapp.com/products/level3/netappfilers.html, it looks like it falls between (the cracks) the 520 and 630.
The 520 can do 28 drives max whereas the 630 can do 52 drives.
Don't my f540's do 52 drives as well?
| to reconstruct a fully-configured array in no more than a target | amount of time. (I think the target is 8 hours but it's late and I'm | picking that from non-parity neurons. ;-))
Add to that "with acceptable performance degradation" and you can put it on the product literature... :)
I had forgotten how long it can take a loaded filer to rebuild a disk.
Thanks,
Alexei