Aetherstore, looks amazing, what about...
-
@MattSpeller said:
Wouldn't this exponentially increase your network traffic as well? Re-Sync'ing all those mirrors all the time? Yuck!
Why would they resync? What are you picturing happening? It's block level replication. So they stay in sync. On a normal GigE switch network this would create completely unnoticed traffic for normal amounts of storage. Remember "network traffic" is a weird concept as this would only create traffic peer to peer amongst four nodes. So what network impact are you imagining?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
This is why I'm after the scheduling, so it can only hog the network after hours.
I think that the idea of how much bandwidth is needed for storage is overestimated. GigE is enough for some pretty hefty SAN connections and we are talking about that just for change replication for non-primary storage. Unless you are doing something weird, traffic will be pretty small.
And, of course, replication happens when the storage happens. Run a backup at night and the sync is going to be at night too while the writes are going on.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
This is why I'm after the scheduling, so it can only hog the network after hours.
I think what you want is just an RSYNC group.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would they resync? What are you picturing happening? It's block level replication. So they stay in sync. On a normal GigE switch network this would create completely unnoticed traffic for normal amounts of storage. Remember "network traffic" is a weird concept as this would only create traffic peer to peer amongst four nodes. So what network impact are you imagining?
Re-sync was a bad term, they'd need to sync up any blocks that changed - absolutely. Ditto network, you're right it'd be peer to peer for most of it.
Maybe I've just not had my coffee, or something, but this whole concept gives me the creeps.
-
@MattSpeller said:
You'd need a large dependable desktop fleet for this to make much sense. $0.02.
Keep in mind that nothing makes you use this on a desktop rather than a server.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Maybe I've just not had my coffee, or something, but this whole concept gives me the creeps.
No different than most modern storage. This is exactly how Gluster or CEPH or Exablox work.
-
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Keep in mind that nothing makes you use this on a desktop rather than a server.
I can't imagine it running smooth as butter over wifi without putting in some serious attention to detail.
This whole thing is super dependant upon very well setup fundamentals - working so much in SMB I just don't see it. I think this is more attractive in a larger business as a backup scenario or something like that.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.IM NOT ALONE!
-
@MattSpeller said:
I can't imagine it running smooth as butter over wifi without putting in some serious attention to detail.
Why would you have wifi to desktops, outside of some really extreme cases?
-
@scottalanmiller Ah I wasn't clear - I can't imagine it running well on a fleet of laptops over wifi. Not without some serious I/O speed penalty.
-
@MattSpeller said:
This whole thing is super dependant upon very well setup fundamentals - working so much in SMB I just don't see it. I think this is more attractive in a larger business as a backup scenario or something like that.
Nearly all SMBs have Windows desktops and GigE networking. Wifi to desktops, no desktops, Linux desktops, FastEthernet... while all exist from time to time are all super rare. A normal SMB can implement this easily and reliably. No technology works for everyone. But this one definitely is targetted at a normal, traditional SMB.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller Ah I wasn't clear - I can't imagine it running well on a fleet of laptops over wifi. Not without some serious I/O speed penalty.
You would never use laptops for permanent storage. This isn't meant to use ephemeral devices, just not necessarily servers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You would never use laptops for permanent storage. This isn't meant to use ephemeral devices, just not necessarily servers.
Until today I couldn't imagine using desktops for that either
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
Why would you need managed switches? In what case are ancient FastEthernet switches acceptable to keep using but if moving to GigE would require both managed switches and fibre? I must be missing something big. How big is the environment? Do you have a lot of VLANs or something? What is the fibre for?
-
@MattSpeller said:
Until today I couldn't imagine using desktops for that either
This has been one of those things that people have proposed for decades. All that wasted, stable, always-on storage going to waste.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall. If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter. And why are you going to fiber if you don't have it now? I only use Fiber from Core Switches to Access switches and from Router to WAN Fiber (and Site-Site Fiber). What other reason do you need it?
That being said I don't have much use for it. But I could see people using it where they don't have good centralize storage, or are always needing some extra utility storage or temporary project storage.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall.
A lot of times (most that I've seen) CAT5 will carry GigE reliably. Not always, but most of the time from what experiences I've had with it. Don't plan on that working, but often it works.
