On Mon, 17 May 1999 12:50:58 -0700, "Jim McCoy" mccoy@yahoo-inc.com said:
sirbruce@ix.netcom.com writes:
As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any signficant downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. That is, one disk failed, and during reconstruction they lost another.
I beg to differ.
I just about to write this exact same email. We've had the same experiences with filer failers and quality control.
We're having the same thoughts about the cost when you want non-stop computing. Netapp is great for the 98% uptime market. They aren't ready to play in the 99.99% uptime market, at least in my view.
I used to be a Netapp enthusiast, but no longer. I'd sleep better if our customers' email was moved off of filers.
Drew "Speaking from experience, but not speaking as a representative of MindSpring" Hobson
"Andrew" == Andrew Hobson ahobson@eng.mindspring.net writes:
Andrew> On Mon, 17 May 1999 12:50:58 -0700, "Jim McCoy" Andrew> mccoy@yahoo-inc.com said: >> sirbruce@ix.netcom.com writes: >>> As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any >>> signficant downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. >>> That is, one disk failed, and during reconstruction they lost >>> another.
>> I beg to differ.
Andrew> I just about to write this exact same email. We've had Andrew> the same experiences with filer failers and quality Andrew> control.
Andrew> We're having the same thoughts about the cost when you Andrew> want non-stop computing. Netapp is great for the 98% Andrew> uptime market. They aren't ready to play in the 99.99% Andrew> uptime market, at least in my view.
Maybe we're just not a big enough NetApp customer. We have an F540, and F630 and an F740. None of them have ever given us the least bit of trouble.
"Andrew" == Andrew Hobson ahobson@eng.mindspring.net writes:
Andrew> On Mon, 17 May 1999 12:50:58 -0700, "Jim McCoy" Andrew> mccoy@yahoo-inc.com said: >> sirbruce@ix.netcom.com writes: >>> As to what happened, the most *likely* scenario for any >>> signficant downtime of the Netapp is double disk failure. >>> That is, one disk failed, and during reconstruction they lost >>> another.
>> I beg to differ.
Andrew> I just about to write this exact same email. We've had Andrew> the same experiences with filer failers and quality Andrew> control.
Andrew> We're having the same thoughts about the cost when you Andrew> want non-stop computing. Netapp is great for the 98% Andrew> uptime market. They aren't ready to play in the 99.99% Andrew> uptime market, at least in my view.
[Let's try this again. Hit send too soon.]
Maybe we're just not a big enough NetApp customer. We have an F540, an F630, and an F740. None of them have ever given us the least bit of trouble. We're about to upgrade to a pair of clutered F740s.
The F630 we've been pushing to the max for months. We were running over 10K NFSops every day for over a week. Typically it is running at 6-8K NFSops. This is in a web-server application, so we're mostly doing reads.
The only trouble we had was with a GNIC and that was a known bug in 4.x and it didn't show up till after the box had been up for almost a year. We upgraded to 5.2.2 and the problem went away.
We've had no hardware failures that have brought the boxes down. Never had to do a wack. The F540 stayed up solid for almost two years.
We haven't had any trouble with the F740 since we first powered it up 120 days ago.
j. -- Jay Soffian jay@cimedia.com UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media
-
Andrew Hobson -
Jay Soffian