|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > October 2006 > Need advice on new file server
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Need advice on new file server
|
|
| Albert Chin 2006-10-09, 7:16 pm |
| We're doing software builds across 25 different UNIX platforms (some
platforms as old as Solaris 2.6, HP-UX 10.20, Redhat Linux 7.1, Tru64
UNIX 4.0D to the latest versions of all of these). We currently have
the source code repository available via NFS with software
installation done locally. This is getting cumbersome as we continue
adding new software and upgrading disks isn't fun anymore.
So, we need a "real" file server solution. We push new releases every
6 months and archive 4 releases at a time to provide security fixes
against. Adding up the total disk space requirements for the latest
release, it's ~600GB.
To save disk space for the archival releases, we'll snapshot the
release and create security fixes against the snapshot. VxFS will
allow us to write to a snapshot without modifying the contents of the
files the snapshot was taken from. I don't think ONTAP will allow us
to do this.
After 4 releases, with security fixes taken into consideration, I'd
say we need no more than ~1.5TB.
We'd also like to move the source repository to the new file server
and some other data files. The source repository will need to be
archived as well, in a similar manner to the 4 releases. So, this will
add another ~300GB, including the archival releases.
Finally, it would be nice to reduce local disk on the Vmware and mail
servers and possibly use iSCSI to the file server for disk access.
This will require an additional ~400GB.
So, we need at least 2.2TB, with expansion capability to, I imagine,
3TB for the next few years.
As for backups, we're currently using nearline storage which is
sufficient and plan to continue this into the future (backup to SATA
drives).
What are good options for the file server? I'm currently thinking of a
Sun server to provide NFS access because we'll need VxFS for the
archival snapshots. The Sun server will be connected to a storage
array via FC and, for the Vmware and mail servers, iSCSI access to the
storage array for direct access.
--
albert chin (china @at@ thewrittenword .dot. com)
| |
| Faeandar 2006-10-10, 1:17 am |
| On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:15:28 -0500, Albert Chin
<china@thewrittenword.com> wrote:
>We're doing software builds across 25 different UNIX platforms (some
>platforms as old as Solaris 2.6, HP-UX 10.20, Redhat Linux 7.1, Tru64
>UNIX 4.0D to the latest versions of all of these). We currently have
>the source code repository available via NFS with software
>installation done locally. This is getting cumbersome as we continue
>adding new software and upgrading disks isn't fun anymore.
>
>So, we need a "real" file server solution. We push new releases every
>6 months and archive 4 releases at a time to provide security fixes
>against. Adding up the total disk space requirements for the latest
>release, it's ~600GB.
>
>To save disk space for the archival releases, we'll snapshot the
>release and create security fixes against the snapshot. VxFS will
>allow us to write to a snapshot without modifying the contents of the
>files the snapshot was taken from. I don't think ONTAP will allow us
>to do this.
>
>After 4 releases, with security fixes taken into consideration, I'd
>say we need no more than ~1.5TB.
>
>We'd also like to move the source repository to the new file server
>and some other data files. The source repository will need to be
>archived as well, in a similar manner to the 4 releases. So, this will
>add another ~300GB, including the archival releases.
>
>Finally, it would be nice to reduce local disk on the Vmware and mail
>servers and possibly use iSCSI to the file server for disk access.
>This will require an additional ~400GB.
>
>So, we need at least 2.2TB, with expansion capability to, I imagine,
>3TB for the next few years.
>
>As for backups, we're currently using nearline storage which is
>sufficient and plan to continue this into the future (backup to SATA
>drives).
>
>What are good options for the file server? I'm currently thinking of a
>Sun server to provide NFS access because we'll need VxFS for the
>archival snapshots. The Sun server will be connected to a storage
>array via FC and, for the Vmware and mail servers, iSCSI access to the
>storage array for direct access.
Everything you're looking to do is done beautifully by a NetApp,
including the writable snapshot (look into flexclone). And iSCSI
licenses are free.
If budget does not allow for a NetApp then look into a Sun server
running ZFS. I've only started to look at that but it has promise.
But if what you truly want is a "real file server solution" there's
still nothing that beats a NetApp overall.
~F
| |
| carmelomcc 2006-10-10, 1:13 pm |
| I would look at the EMC NSG solution backed by Clariion with ATA
storage. Compare EMC and NetApp and go with the best priced solution.
Faeandar wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:15:28 -0500, Albert Chin
> <china@thewrittenword.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Everything you're looking to do is done beautifully by a NetApp,
> including the writable snapshot (look into flexclone). And iSCSI
> licenses are free.
>
> If budget does not allow for a NetApp then look into a Sun server
> running ZFS. I've only started to look at that but it has promise.
>
> But if what you truly want is a "real file server solution" there's
> still nothing that beats a NetApp overall.
>
> ~F
| |
| Albert Chin 2006-10-10, 1:13 pm |
| Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:15:28 -0500, Albert Chin
> <china@thewrittenword.com> wrote:
>
> If budget does not allow for a NetApp then look into a Sun server
> running ZFS. I've only started to look at that but it has promise.
We thought about this but it's essentially a .0 version so we'd rather
stay with something proven for now.
--
albert chin (china @at@ thewrittenword .dot. com)
| |
| Dale Ghent 2006-10-10, 1:13 pm |
| Albert Chin wrote:
> Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> We thought about this but it's essentially a .0 version so we'd rather
> stay with something proven for now.
>
Many people use ZFS in production already. Is there something specific
with ZFS that you're having problems with?
/dale
| |
| Albert Chin 2006-10-10, 7:13 pm |
| Dale Ghent <daleg+nntp@umbc.edu> wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
>
> Many people use ZFS in production already. Is there something specific
> with ZFS that you're having problems with?
No. But, sometimes I read the opensolaris-zfs-discuss mailing list and
get scared when I see reports of some of the failures encountered.
--
albert chin (china @at@ thewrittenword .dot. com)
| |
| Faeandar 2006-10-10, 7:13 pm |
| On 10 Oct 2006 05:59:05 -0700, "carmelomcc"
<carmelo.mccutcheon@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would look at the EMC NSG solution backed by Clariion with ATA
>storage. Compare EMC and NetApp and go with the best priced solution.
If budget is the issue there are much cheaper solutions that are
better than EMC's NAS. I've not heard any good reports regarding it.
Either the data is very important, and therefore worth the money, or
the budget is the driver and you go with something that fits within
it.
But for my own experience EMC is neither (strictly in the NAS space).
~F
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Faeandar wrote:
|
|
|
|
|