cyc-01
asked on
Size of NFS exports with a EqualLogic PS6100 (w/ the FS7500 NAS heads)
Hello,
We have a EqualLogic PS6100 w/ the FS7500 NAS heads and we have created a 10TB NAS container.
We have about 3TB of data to export via NFS. Our clients are all Debian 6.0.
We use automounts on the Debian systems and it can see the FS7500 w/out issue. The question is how the data should be presented.
Currently, we have an export container called foo and it is 3TB.
So, the clients just go to cd /foo and can see all of the data.
Clearly, the data is organized into directories. Example: foo/tools, foo/departments etc
My question is whether it makes more sense to create exports like this:
/foo/tools
/foo/departments
So instead of having a 3TB export we would have several exports of smaller sizes. The automount can still see these exports and so that is not a problem. Example:
tools export container would be 1TB, deparments would be 800MB etc
I am just wondering if there any advantages/disadvantages to breaking up the data? Or is it just a matter of preference/ease of management.
Thanks
We have a EqualLogic PS6100 w/ the FS7500 NAS heads and we have created a 10TB NAS container.
We have about 3TB of data to export via NFS. Our clients are all Debian 6.0.
We use automounts on the Debian systems and it can see the FS7500 w/out issue. The question is how the data should be presented.
Currently, we have an export container called foo and it is 3TB.
So, the clients just go to cd /foo and can see all of the data.
Clearly, the data is organized into directories. Example: foo/tools, foo/departments etc
My question is whether it makes more sense to create exports like this:
/foo/tools
/foo/departments
So instead of having a 3TB export we would have several exports of smaller sizes. The automount can still see these exports and so that is not a problem. Example:
tools export container would be 1TB, deparments would be 800MB etc
I am just wondering if there any advantages/disadvantages to breaking up the data? Or is it just a matter of preference/ease of management.
Thanks
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
For various reasons, we do not backup at the container level but at the filesystem level. Meaning, if my filesystem looks like:
/FOO (3TB mount)
/FOO/data
/FOO/stuff
then I can just setup backup jobs (in netvault) as follows:
bkjob1 = /FOO/data
bkjob2 = /FOO/stuff
As such, I can achieve different backup windows/times/strategies while still using a 3TB container.
I might be over thinking this, I just don't want to get into a position later in which a 4TB automount is an issue because of some problem with NFS or similar.
Otherwise, I can't find any issues with this idea.
I am going to give you the points because you have addressed the issue and confirmed that it wouldn't be a liability.