This discussion is locked
-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
by Strontium90,Oct 2, 2010 4:09 AM in response to Chris Slagel
Strontium90
Oct 2, 2010 4:09 AM
in response to Chris Slagel
Level 5 (4,087 points)
Servers EnterpriseIf you have one controller and the controller goes down, the SAN goes down and you run a higher risk of volume damage. The reason for a dedicated backup controller is so that when the primary goes south, there is another system to take of the SAN control, allowing you to complete writes and shut the volume down cleanly.
If the system is not going to be used that often, are you sure Xsan is the right solution for you? Even if you try and scrimp to save money and make a workstation a backup controller, you are still going to spend about $40K for the solution ($20K for a single RAID array, $7k for a dedicated controller, $4k for the FC switch (you should get two), wiring costs, redundant power, cooling, etc). That is a lot to spend for something that is not going to get much use.
Oh, and don't go easy on RAM. For your controllers get 2 Gigs per SAN volume and at try to leave 4 Gigs as overhead for the OS and other services. Don't run anything else on the main controller other than DNS and Dir Services (unless you are doing AD integration).
Hope this helps -
Oct 5, 2010 1:17 PM in response to Strontium90by Chris Slagel,Well I don't have to worry about most of that stuff, already have an idle Promise array that we'd be using. The only things we'd really need to spend money on are the xServe for the Metadata controller and that'd only be about $3500, then the 3 xSan licenses (controller, 2 client machines). Really just need to know the chances of data loss if the controller goes down without a backup.