|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > March 2006 > Max FileSystem size for NAS
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 |
Max FileSystem size for NAS
|
|
| f0rd42 2006-02-17, 11:06 pm |
|
Hi
we're currently thinking about some NAS strategies. Unfortunately the
application in use needs all data at a single LUN / Share. As we came
into trouble with the max LUN size (2TB) we're thought about providing
the necessary amount of storage via CIFS (not good at all, I know, but
the only supported protocol).
My question now:
Does anyone of you have experience with quite BIG NAS filers in regards
to max. filesystem size?
The 16 TB max I read somewhere on the NetApp website is not enough, we
have to plan with about 100 TB in the next 12 month and all under a
single mountpoint / sing filesystem with enough powerto stream media
files.
Thanks a lot in advance.
f0rd42
--
f0rd42
---
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results.”
Benjamin Franklin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f0rd42's Profile: http://www.storagecommunity.org/for...er.php?userid=4
View this thread: http://www.storagecommunity.org/for...read.php?t=2089
| |
|
| On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:04:45 +0100, f0rd42 wrote:
>My question now:
>Does anyone of you have experience with quite BIG NAS filers in regards
>to max. filesystem size?
Yes, but 16TB is still large, even these days. I don't know the max
FS size for NetApp (or anyone else) off the top of my head, though I
have a feeling NetApp are not limited to 16TB...
>The 16 TB max I read somewhere on the NetApp website is not enough, we
>have to plan with about 100 TB in the next 12 month and all under a
>single mountpoint / sing filesystem with enough powerto stream media
>files.
100TB in one File System? Are you sure that's really what you want?
How about using DFS? You could split the load out over lots of file
systems that way.
HVB
| |
| ewilts 2006-02-17, 11:06 pm |
| f0rd42 wrote:
> The 16 TB max I read somewhere on the NetApp website is not enough, we
> have to plan with about 100 TB in the next 12 month and all under a
> single mountpoint / sing filesystem with enough powerto stream media
> files.
I've only got 4 words to say about a 100TB LUN.
1. chkdsk
2. backup
3. restore
4. resume (and that's with the accent on the e).
You said you've got a year before you hit 100TB. Use that time to
rewrite the app - it's seriously broken now.
.../Ed
| |
| Faeandar 2006-02-17, 11:06 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:04:45 +0100, f0rd42
<f0rd42.23a0aa@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote:
>
>Hi
>
>we're currently thinking about some NAS strategies. Unfortunately the
>application in use needs all data at a single LUN / Share. As we came
>into trouble with the max LUN size (2TB) we're thought about providing
>the necessary amount of storage via CIFS (not good at all, I know, but
>the only supported protocol).
This application will not scale. In fact, there's a good chance
you're OS won't recognize anything larger right now anyway.
>My question now:
>Does anyone of you have experience with quite BIG NAS filers in regards
>to max. filesystem size?
Some. So more specific questions would be in order.
>
>The 16 TB max I read somewhere on the NetApp website is not enough, we
>have to plan with about 100 TB in the next 12 month and all under a
>single mountpoint / sing filesystem with enough powerto stream media
>files.
16TB is the largest a NetApp can do in a single volume. You can make
that volume a single file system if you wish.
You could look at Isilon who claims to be able to do petabytes in a
single OneFS (their file system).
~F
| |
| Anton Rang 2006-02-17, 11:06 pm |
| f0rd42 <f0rd42.23a0aa@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> writes:
> Does anyone of you have experience with quite BIG NAS filers in regards
> to max. filesystem size?
Not a NAS filer, but you could use an ordinary UNIX system with NFS.
NFS doesn't limit file system size. Some file systems, including Sun's QFS,
support multi-terabyte file systems. (QFS scales to a petabyte or more of
disk space, and can hold much more data, at lower cost, with a tape backend.)
-- Anton
| |
|
| Try lowering your volume size.
| |
| MObiker 2006-03-08, 7:47 am |
|
f0rd42 Wrote:
> Hi
>
> we're currently thinking about some NAS strategies. Unfortunately the
> application in use needs all data at a single LUN / Share. As we came
> into trouble with the max LUN size (2TB) we're thought about providing
> the necessary amount of storage via CIFS (not good at all, I know, but
> the only supported protocol).
>
> My question now:
> Does anyone of you have experience with quite BIG NAS filers in
> regards
> to max. filesystem size?
>
> The 16 TB max I read somewhere on the NetApp website is not enough, we
> have to plan with about 100 TB in the next 12 month and all under a
> single mountpoint / sing filesystem with enough powerto stream media
> files.
>
>
Check out the appliance by NeoPath Networks. I saw someone combine a
bunch of NetApp appliances into one large filesystem.
www.neopathnetworks.com
--
MObiker
| |
| Faeandar 2006-03-08, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:44:53 +0000, MObiker
<MObiker.24cgn7@news.computerbanter.com> wrote:
>
>f0rd42 Wrote:
>
>Check out the appliance by NeoPath Networks. I saw someone combine a
>bunch of NetApp appliances into one large filesystem.
>www.neopathnetworks.com
Good point actually. Acopia does the same thing; takes file systems
from multiple sources and presents them as one.
There are still limitations though in terms of metadata management and
file count limitations.
~F
|
|
|
|
|