Re: problems with qla2x00
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: problems with qla2x00
- From: Matt Zagrabelny <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:09:39 -0600
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <OFEC56436E.2F9FA34E-ONC1256F3E.00537B0E-41256F3E.0053FBB4@nimbus.at> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
> > i guess the idea is that the SAN is a single point of failure.
> But aren't single points of failure A Bad Thing?
if either A or B fails your system fails is a bad thing. (the system
depending on two hard drives)
if A fails your system fails is not as bad. (the system depending on one
> Does the QLogic SAN driver support redundancy (2 cards, both doing
> the same thing, so that if one card dies, the box keeps working)?
yes, some cards do (i believe). but this one does not.
> A simple "little" 80GB IDE hard drive doesn't seem that complicated
> (unless you have a dozen boxes, which is a good reason for wanting
> to boot off the SAN).
> Booting off an IDE drive is about as simple/known/robust as one
> could imagine. No need for special drivers, work-arounds, etc.
> Maybe it's just me...
the base OS doesnt need much space, so it can live on the SAN with the
data. thus the local disk is unnecessary.