On Mon, November 23, 2009 09:53, Frank Middleton wrote:
> On 11/23/09 10:10 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Is there enough information available from system configuration
>> to make an automatic HCL (or unofficial HCL competitor) feasible?
>> could write an application people could run which would report their
>> opinion on how well it works, plus the self-reported identity of all key
>> components? (It could report uptime, too, as one very small objective
>> rating of stability.)
> IIRC, the HCL doesn't really talk about applications. We have some really
> flaky PCs that run Open Solaris beautifully and their uptime is measured
> in months (basically only new releases or long power cuts make them
> come down). Would I recommend them for a ZFS based server? Not a
> chance! But they make super reliable X-Terminals...
So they're okay except maybe for IO? Well, that's the sort of thing
people could add comments on as they got experience with them. Still
seems like it could be useful.
> As Richard Elling has pointed out so eloquently, a reliable storage
> system has to be engineered to minimize or eliminate SPoFS, and I
> doubt you'll ever find that on an HCL, which really serves a different
> purpose, IMO.
Lots of storage servers, outside the big corporate environment, can't
afford full-blown redundancy. For many of us, we're just taking the first
steps into using any kind of redundancy at all in disks for our file
servers. Full enterprise-grade storage is too expensive for many of us,
and we're looking for close to that level risk of loss, but are willing to
sacrifice some on the availability (it's okay for the server to be down
while I replace the power supply; after all, I can't be sitting at my
computer anyway, I have to replace this power supply).
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
zfs-discuss mailing list