* Re: [9fans] Archiving appliance [not found] <1057912039.10046.16.camel@coffin01> @ 2003-07-11 15:06 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-07-11 15:16 ` ron minnich 2003-07-11 20:22 ` Skip Tavakkolian 0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-07-11 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans I'll go first, hopefully other can correct me. there are several approaches you can take, rated here based on how good they sound to me (this also happens to be the same order, had they been rated by the 'impossibility to implement in the real world' scale): - replace NetApp with Fossil/Venti. it really sounds like a good idea. a fossil/venti combination gives you exactly the same thing as a NetApp, but it has the archival option (dumps), and no NFS as a bonus. (how about speed?) cons: you need to teach your client applications to speak 9p - teach NetApp to speak 9p (or just to talk directly to the Venti) and have it store dumps there every night. good thing about this is that your applications don't need to know 9p, and could still access /n/dump/yyyy/mmdd/-style archives. cons: quite a bit. teaching NetApp to talk 9p may be quite the task. you still have NFS. - have a fossil/venti/nfs server in the back, where netapp dumps the data. that way you don't have to change anything but just add functionality. cons: you still have to deal with NFS, and Plan 9 does not a good NFS server make, I've heard. andrey ps: this list is non-exhaustive, it is just what I could think of during morning coffee. it also could be totally wrong. On 11 Jul 2003, Anders Soendergaard wrote: > Hi Plan 9 folks. > > I'm involved in a project that is to produce archiving > services to our company. Besides policies and procedures > we need a box with a lot of disks. > > I thought it would be fun to see if it was possible to > use Venti/Fossil for that purpose. My wet dream is to make > some sort of Plan 9 archiving appliance that you would dump > your data on from our NetApp's. We would then have several > of those appliances on different sites that replicated their > local content to the others. > > The first obstacle is to get the data from the NetApps to > the Venti/Fossil server. This might be through a gateway > of some sort. > > Has anybody tried something like that? Or is it a waste > of time to try this approach? > > > Best regards, > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Archiving appliance 2003-07-11 15:06 ` [9fans] Archiving appliance andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-07-11 15:16 ` ron minnich 2003-07-11 20:22 ` Skip Tavakkolian 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2003-07-11 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, andrey mirtchovski wrote: > - replace NetApp with Fossil/Venti. it really sounds like a good idea. a > fossil/venti combination gives you exactly the same thing as a NetApp, but > it has the archival option (dumps), and no NFS as a bonus. (how about > speed?) netapp has snapshots however. > cons: you need to teach your client applications to speak 9p er ... > cons: quite a bit. teaching NetApp to talk 9p may be quite the task. you > still have NFS. esp. as netapp will say market share for 9p servers is approx 0.0% > cons: you still have to deal with NFS, and Plan 9 does not a good NFS > server make, I've heard. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Archiving appliance 2003-07-11 15:06 ` [9fans] Archiving appliance andrey mirtchovski 2003-07-11 15:16 ` ron minnich @ 2003-07-11 20:22 ` Skip Tavakkolian 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Skip Tavakkolian @ 2003-07-11 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans One of my clients recently had an RFC for a document management system. The process was well underway before I got there. Had I been there early enough, it would have been worthwhile to propose a Plan9 solution for about a quarter of the average price from other vendors. I went through a rough cost estimate exercise. One chunk of the effort would have to go to maturing SMB and NFS servers, and adding in a snapshot-on-change feature; Another would be to build an automatic mechanism for indexing of the content and correlating it with fossil/venti snapshots. I think this would be the same issue for caching servers. Relating what the user is looking for with a snapshot will be the key. Maybe that is what rob is working on at google. maybe not. > I'll go first, hopefully other can correct me. > > there are several approaches you can take, rated here based on how good they > sound to me (this also happens to be the same order, had they been rated by > the 'impossibility to implement in the real world' scale): > > - replace NetApp with Fossil/Venti. it really sounds like a good idea. a > fossil/venti combination gives you exactly the same thing as a NetApp, but > it has the archival option (dumps), and no NFS as a bonus. (how about > speed?) > > cons: you need to teach your client applications to speak 9p > > - teach NetApp to speak 9p (or just to talk directly to the Venti) and have > it store dumps there every night. good thing about this is that your > applications don't need to know 9p, and could still access > /n/dump/yyyy/mmdd/-style archives. > > cons: quite a bit. teaching NetApp to talk 9p may be quite the task. you > still have NFS. > > - have a fossil/venti/nfs server in the back, where netapp dumps the data. > that way you don't have to change anything but just add functionality. > > cons: you still have to deal with NFS, and Plan 9 does not a good NFS > server make, I've heard. > > andrey > > ps: this list is non-exhaustive, it is just what I could think of during > morning coffee. it also could be totally wrong. > > On 11 Jul 2003, Anders Soendergaard wrote: > >> Hi Plan 9 folks. >> >> I'm involved in a project that is to produce archiving >> services to our company. Besides policies and procedures >> we need a box with a lot of disks. >> >> I thought it would be fun to see if it was possible to >> use Venti/Fossil for that purpose. My wet dream is to make >> some sort of Plan 9 archiving appliance that you would dump >> your data on from our NetApp's. We would then have several >> of those appliances on different sites that replicated their >> local content to the others. >> >> The first obstacle is to get the data from the NetApps to >> the Venti/Fossil server. This might be through a gateway >> of some sort. >> >> Has anybody tried something like that? Or is it a waste >> of time to try this approach? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-11 20:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <1057912039.10046.16.camel@coffin01> 2003-07-11 15:06 ` [9fans] Archiving appliance andrey mirtchovski 2003-07-11 15:16 ` ron minnich 2003-07-11 20:22 ` Skip Tavakkolian
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).