> can be instantly routed should a server go down, so we may want to go
> with a different, faster, less secure RAID level. Is this an option
> with the 760, or does WAFL tie you to RAID 4?
With a filer, the only option is RAID 4. Is there something in particular
that
would make RAID 4 a poor choice for this application?
When you say "faster, less secure", what aspect of operations are you
looking
at?
Your performace milage will vary, depending on what exactly you are trying
to
do. But the cache the filers have, along with WAFL buy you a whole lot of
performance.
If you want less security and can take a hit when a disk fails, then
building huge
raid groups would get you where you want to be, it sounds like.
good luck.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 10:20:56 EST