Re: Shared Storage?

Nik Simpson wrote:
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
> > "WipeOut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am going to be setting up a couple of linux servers in the near
> > > future and these servers will have ever increasing storage needs..
> > >
> > > One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail
> > > server..
> > >
> > > I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have
> > > the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that
> > > capacity can be increased as needed..
> >
> > While Nik has offered good suggestions, he doesn't seem to have ever
> > asked you *why* you want to share the storage between the two servers
> > rather than simply use directly-attached storage with each one.  That
> > would give you two separate DAS arrays, each of which could be
> > expanded according to need - and almost certainly the overall
> > least-expensive solution, if there's no actual need to share the
> > storage.
>
>
> Certainly a good point, truly shared storage does add additional cost and
> complexity to the solution. My bet is that the shared requirement is that he
> doesn't really know what the final storage requirements will be and which
> server will end up requiring the majority of the storage, in which case
> starting with a shared storage architecture does make life easier in some
> ways. But given the very small budget indicated in a later post, I'd be
> inclined to used DAS as well, and probably wouldn't use external arrays at
> all, just pick a server chassis with plenty of SATA/PATA hotswap drive bays
> which would give ample room for expansion for some time (you can 2-3U
> chassis that hold 3-4TB.) At the end of that time it might be time to relook
> at the issue, but given the lifespan of the typical server these days, its
> probably not going to happen until he's in the position of having to replace
> the original servers anyway.

Yes, you are correct, I don't know how much storage capacity I am going 
to need in each server so the option of only upgrading a central storage 
facility seemed a better on.. Also it ment that storage space would be 
used more efficiently and I don't end up with a whole lot of waited 
space on one server while running short on another..

There is also the added benefit that I can add multiple app servers and 
load balance traffic across them if a single server does not have the 
processing capacity or if I want added redundancy.. By having a central 
data repository this addition of servers is easy..

What I am finding is, as you have said, DAS is cheaper then any of the 
alternatives so I think I will have to go that way for now and hope that 
the budget is there to migrate to a shared storage facility when the 
need presents its self..

Later..