Chris's Wiki :: blog/sysadmin/OurScaleI Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/OurScaleI?atomcommentsDWiki2010-10-14T20:07:39ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/sysadmin/OurScaleI.By Chris Siebenmann on /blog/sysadmin/OurScaleItag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/OurScaleI:e368209edfbc0d775f30c47b0a9bf50e54a1f4f5Chris Siebenmann<div class="wikitext"><p>We use fixed-size LUN chunks because it's the only way to manage a
scalable long-term environment; it means we can always mirror any
two LUNs together without worrying about how big they are. (There's
more discussion of this in <a href="https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/SANPartitionSizes">SANPartitionSizes</a>.)</p>
<p>I have no interest in COMSTAR because it would require me to run
(Open)Solaris on the iSCSI backends. As far as I can see this
would be a massive loss on all sorts of dimensions (including
practical hardware support).</p>
</div>2010-10-14T20:07:39ZFrom 198.102.62.250 on /blog/sysadmin/OurScaleItag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/OurScaleI:eac1993bb8d4380a712561f8284fd299302a48a1From 198.102.62.250<div class="wikitext"><p>Chris, a couple of questions....</p>
<ul><li>Why do you use 250GB LUN chunks instead of the full disk? For consistency or management ease?</li>
<li>Have you considered switching to COMSTAR for iSCSI target functionality or are you so pleased with IET's performance that there's no need to fix what ain't broke?</li>
</ul>
<p>Ray Van Dolson</p>
</div>2010-10-14T17:30:01Z