If it was me. I would use nfs on a big raid server. You will not need anything to big. How much traffic are we talking about? www.3ware.com is a good ide way to go. A 4 port card can push around 100mbps before it starts to have problems. Only way I would setup an nfs raid server anymore would be a nice sun server with a d1000 or a1000 on it. Only other thing I would point out if you use a linux server for nfs is make sure have nfs over tcp in the kernel. Feel free to e-mail. I will help you as much as I can. On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 04:31, WipeOut wrote: > I know this is a little off topic but I thought I would give it a try > here anyway becasue I think the people in this group are the right kind > of people to answer my question.. > > I am going to be setting up a couple of servers in the near future and > these servers will have ever increasing storage needs.. > > One server will be a web/file server and the other will be a mail server.. > > I don't want to keep moving the data to bigger drives, I want to have > the servers use a shared storage facility that runs RAID and that > capacity can be increased as needed.. Preferably using ATA or SATA > drives to keep the cost down.. > > I have looked briefly at things like SAN's but these are far to > expensive for our limited budget.. > > I have also thought of NAS but I am not sure the access over > NFS/ethernet will be fast enough.. Even gigabit ethernet may become a > bottleneck.. I guess I could put a gig ethernet link between each server > and the storage server so each server has a dedicated gig ethernet > connection.. > > Anyway I guess you get the idea about what I am trying to do.. > > Has anyone setup something similar that didn't cost massive amounts of > money?? > > Anyone got any pointers to sites or products that would point me in the > right direction? > > Thanks > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
