[709] in SIPB-AFS-requests
AFS disk-space needs for next 3 years?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barr3y Jaspan)
Fri Jun 26 12:43:54 1992
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 92 12:43:12 -0400
From: "Barr3y Jaspan" <bjaspan@Athena.MIT.EDU>
To: mhpower@Athena.MIT.EDU
Cc: sipb-afsreq@Athena.MIT.EDU, sipb@Athena.MIT.EDU,
In-Reply-To: mhpower@Athena.MIT.EDU's message of Thu, 25 Jun 92 21:02:20 EDT <9206260102.AA18493@bill-the-cat.MIT.EDU>
I am not opposed to asking for more disk space, but I disagree with
your summary of our current state.
From: mhpower@Athena.MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 21:02:20 EDT
This means our disk usage has gone up 1.3 Gb in 9.5 months.
Our disk usage increased because our available disk space increased;
data always expands to fill the available volume. This is not to say
that none of the extra space is being used profitably, but probably we
could have done equally well with less space, if we had less space.
Therefore, 1.3G/9.5 months is not a reasonable figure.
The current "SIPB Hardware Requirements and Machine Proposal" doesn't
request any more disk space over the next three years (7/92 - 7/95).
Actually, it specifies a net reduction of 0.4 Gb: we've asked for a
new AFS server with 1 Gb, to arrive when ronald-ann is decommissioned
in July 1993.
This actually isn't true, but you have to read carefully. You are
forgetting the disk space that will be freed by the new news server,
each of which will have their own 1.2G drive.
We currently have slightly less than 3.0G in the SIPB cell. That
number will soon increase to 4.2G when the 1.2G drive currently being
used for news is replaced by the Maxine drives. In FY94, we will lose
1.3G along with ronald-ann, and will (according to the proposal) gain
about 1G of additional space. Since "about 1G" will almost certainly
translate to no less than a 1.2G Fujitsu drive, our total space after
this change will be 4.1G, a full gigabyte more than we have today.
Now, maybe you think that isn't enough, and perhaps you are right. It
certainly doesn't leave a lot of breathing room. However, if next
year we produce another three year report for FY94, FY96, and FY96,
and it includes an additional $1k (or less, since prices drop) for
another gigabyte of disk space, I don't think IS will choke,
particularly given that we already demonstrated our attempts to work
without the additional space.
On the other hand, I don't think it will kill us to add another 1G
drive to the proposal, either. Perhaps in FY95, when we aren't
requesting any server hardware at all...
Barr3y
