Re: [Xen-users] 24TB redundant storage

[Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Todd H. Foster
> <toddf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The simple answer here is to spend lots of money on a NetApp appliance
>> or two, or some other brand.
>> If you are going to be serving up vm's, speed is your friend.  The
>> combination of network, cpu, bus speed all play a role in what you get
>> out of a san. Also if you go with a ZFS implementation, memory will have
>> a big impact as well.
>>
>> Here is a little education for you on what exactly you can expect for
>> performance, from reasonably priced standard hardware.
>> http://www.zfsbuild.com/
>
> Your data is quite out-of-date, considering it's based on an old
> version of FreeNAS using ZFSv15, while the latest version of FreeNAS
> has ZFSv28.


Uhmmm no..... FreeNAS 8.2.0 Beta is ZFS filesystem version 4
ZFS storage pool version 15


The TruNAS boxes ship with the newer version of FreeNAS,
> so performance will be quite different to what you have listed under
> your benchmarks section.  The TruNAS boxes are also appliances, with
> hardware optimised to run FreeNAS to get the most out of ZFS.
>
> It all depends on the OP's requirements.  Nowhere in the original mail
> was "absolute best performance possible" listed as a requirement.
> Just "reliable", "HA failover", and "realtime replication".  All
> things that FreeNAS + HAST provide.
>
> Not everyone needs to spend $100K on storage, everytime.
>
> --
> Freddie Cash
> fjwcash@xxxxxxxxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-users

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-users