1. Forum Rules (PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ BEFORE POSTING) Click the link to access ADSM.ORG Acceptable Use Policy and forum rules which should be observed when using this website. Violators may be banned from this website. This message will disappear after you have made at least 12 posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

tapeless solution - DISK versus FILE

Discussion in 'Backup / Archive Discussion' started by r.kennedy, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. r.kennedy

    r.kennedy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have a tapeless nearline solution for our data storage, remotely mirrored offsite.



    What is the practical difference between just having primary DISK pools and creating a FILE-based devclass stgp? All I can figure is that one of them I will have to reclaim, and the other I don't. Is there an advantage to the FILE solution that I'm not seeing?
     
  2.  
  3. heada

    heada Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    168
    Occupation:
    Storage Administrator
    Location:
    Indiana
    One more advantage of the diskpool based system is the ability to use raw logical volumes. Creating raw volumes is MUCH faster that normal volumes and it seems to me that read/write operations(via direct I/O) happen faster them them as well.



    -Aaron
     
  4. moon-buddy

    moon-buddy Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,177
    Likes Received:
    277
    Occupation:
    Electronics Engineer, Security Professional
    Location:
    Somewhere in the US
    Cost?



    Disk based solution is expensive as the volume of data increases. However, if you definitely know that you will not exceed you initial design levels (capacity), then disk based is faster and better.



    File based offers robustness where disk based solutions falls short on. Disk crashes will be often, maybe in the magnitude of 1000 to 1, than file based crashes.



    Just my two cents ...
     
  5. moon-buddy

    moon-buddy Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    6,177
    Likes Received:
    277
    Occupation:
    Electronics Engineer, Security Professional
    Location:
    Somewhere in the US
    Cost?



    Disk based solution is expensive as the volume of data increases. However, if you definitely know that you will not exceed you initial design levels (capacity), then disk based is faster and better.



    File based offers robustness where disk based solutions falls short on. Disk crashes will be often, maybe in the magnitude of 1000 to 1, than file based crashes.



    Just my two cents ...
     
  6. heada

    heada Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    168
    Occupation:
    Storage Administrator
    Location:
    Indiana
    Would not the number of hardware issues be exactly the same as you have to store the files on a disk somewhere? Raw logical volumes are just volumes on disk and files are just files in a filesystem on disk. If you are using a journaling filesystem, you have an added safty net but you also have the overhead of the journal. With proper hardware (HP EVA, EMC DMX/DMX3, IBM ESS) losing a disk or two can happen and no one would even know (I've lost 4 disks at the same time across multiple arrays in an ESS 800 and didn't know until IBM showed up to replace them)



    Most people I know that are looking at purely disk based systems(raw or file) are doing so for speed. When you require the speed of disk for your backup, it is assumed that you will be paying more than if you were using tape.



    Personally, I like the feeling I have by being able to walk out of the datacenter with 4 3592 tapes in my hand and know I'm carrying 3+TB....but thats just me.



    -Aaron
     

Share This Page