We are in the process of installing our F760 Clusters this/next week. We will be putting them through rigorous testing before placing them online as production.

Today we installed boot firmware 2.1_a2, Data OnTap 5.2.1 and installed the hardware. We will connect the failover equipment in the coming week. I will keep you all posted on our progress.

Secondly, Auspex NS2000 does not support clustering today. It is scheduled for sometime in September. For failover today, you would need the NS4000. You buy two systems and one is a mirror of the master. You may also want to consider EMC. They are new to the NFS market but are making great strides. -gdg

Russ Amidon wrote:

Hello Everyone,

I am about to purchase two F760's w/ Cluster Failover Software and Hardware because we need a system that is 100% available and rock solid. I was convinced after talking to other Net App users that this was the way to go. After a week of reading this mailing list, I am no longer convinced. Does anyone out there have the system I described? Are you happy with it? I am particularly concerned about the fiber channel problems and all of the OS upgrades and patches.

We are also considering the new Auspex NS2000. Does anyone know of an Auspex mailing list like this one?

Thank you in advance for any advise you can offer to the "future newbie".

Russ Amidon UNIX Sys Admin

First, a disclaimer: I've only worked really briefly with a NetApp. But I've read a lot about them, and when I worked with one (set up a brand new one, got it configured and going on our net, started running some very happy-making benchmarks against it --- all of which took only a couple of hours) I had worked with big Auspexes with their High-Availability [H-A] system ("ServerGuard") for years.

Re your specific config, I couldn't say --- but the only person who _usefully_ could is your specific field circus engineer. If that person has worked with the config you want to buy and seen good stability, then you can expect it to be perfect from the start. If they will be doing something new for them, then expect to ride on the learning curve. The more complex and sophisticated the setup you go for, the longer it will take to get it right. E.g. at least with Auspex's ServerGuard, my experience was that H-A pairs take a _Lot_ longer to get right than single servers, particularly in the neighborhood of NFS locking (double ick).

I really like Auspexes, enjoyed administering them, would happily do so again. They have absolutely fantastic support staff.

After my brief experience with NetApp, I was so enchanted I'd spec a NetApp over an Auspex for any setting that doesn't require multiple-server H-A. I'd still go with an older Auspex config for that, for one reason only: it took so long to get it working perfectly bulletproof right, and the reliability problems during the debugging stretch were so annoying, that I don't want to ride that particular cutting edge again. Give me H-A that has been running stably and well for several years. Let someone younger and more energetic work out the problems in a new implementation.

I don't know of an Auspex mailing list, but there may well be one. What I'd recommend you do to give Auspex a real good hearing is get your Auspex account rep to come for a visit, and have them drag along your local Field Circus engineer, and see how you like that person. Then talk out your needs and the config you have in mind. Obviously, the same drill would apply with Netapp.

If you can possibly see your way clear to doing so, I'd encourage you to consider avoiding an H-A setup. Sink a small fraction of the money needed for H-A into an absolutely top-of-the-line UPS just for the Netapp and nothing else, and then add a cold spare netapp box ready to cable into the drive drawers and power up. Live H-A is _Wicked_ hard to get right, and until it's perfect (takes a loooooong time) it is less reliable than a good single box.

-Bennett