[3061] in SIPB-AFS-requests
Re: FY98 budgeting and AFS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Wed Jul 15 18:16:05 1998
To: mhpower@MIT.EDU
Cc: ghudson@MIT.EDU, sipb-machine-room@MIT.EDU, sipb-afsreq@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:55:12 EDT."
<199807152155.AA21576@stan.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:15:49 EDT
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
> For example, if a RAID unit fails catastrophically, the magnitude of
> the problem of restoring file service is large enough that I believe
> it's almost mandatory that there be people whose job it is to
> restore the service.
This argument I can buy; I hadn't considered the service issues, and
we'd certainly need a plan to deal with the failure of a RAID unit.
(For reference, ASO's plan is to keep a spare RAID unit available,
which might be prohibitively expensive for us.) However:
> If we add Box Hill RAID familiarity to the knowledge base required
> before someone is able to to deal with sipb-cell disk-failure
> issues,
I don't understand this argument at all. Why does a Box Hill RAID
unit require "Box Hill RAID familiarity" but a Seagate disk does not
require "Seagate disk familiarity?" I guess you need to know how to
deal with individual disk failures in a different way, but I don't
expect there's any magic there.
