Re: Repository services and budget

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Michael and Dave,

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> > >etc.), a backup system (not simply tar to DAT), but something like ADSM
> > >for networkign b/u's, 256Mb ot 512MB of memory for DB systems (most
> > >software runs better with more memory and the DB systems are all memory
> > >hogs), RAID or SSI disks so as to improve reliablity on the DB servers.
> > >Basically $10K per server is too low in my opinion.  Look at $30K.
> >
> >       Given the full redundancy of systems, I would guess that RAID is
> > (parden the pun) unnecessarily redunant.  RAID is important for avoiding a
> > single-point of failure problem; but that is solved differently is the
> > proposed, multi-server arrangement.  (Now, RAID for performance may well be
> > a different issue.  I don't have a solid enough feel for current
> > performance to claim to know the definitive answer on this.)
> 
> My experience is that even small database systems with 20 users or so
> can suffer a significant performance hit when somebody runs a query that
> scans significant chunks of the database. In the CORE scenario this could
> happen when generating DNS zone files or generating a separate whois
> data source. Now if the software is properly designed by someone who
> understands database performance issues a lot of this can be sidestepped
> but installing a RAID 5 system with hot-swap chassis can be considered as
> a form of insurance against these problems. In addition, it is no small
> task to rebuild a broken server unless you have taken the precaution to do
> a few dry runs and have a clearly documented procedure in advance.
> 
> In the RAID 5 hot-swap scenario, somebody notices that a drive has failed,
> but it's almost lunch time so let's not worry about it yet. After lunch
> they pull one of the spares off the shelf, yank the broken drive and
> install the replacement. All the while the system runs normally because
> when the drive failed, it's data was automatically rebuilt onto a hot
> spare and by the time the technician returned from lunch the server was
> already back to full operational speed. If the RAID array uses lots of
> 1 gig or 2 gig drives (10 or more) then there is not much performance hit
> during the rebuild. As far as the 3 system scenario goes, I have had
> some gruesome experiences while trying to get operational data onto a
> backup system and it is not uncommon to see two machines out of commission
> during a crisis.
> 
> Note that RAID 5 does not necessarily imply high end server hardware. I
> have set up very nice systems with RAID 5 hot swap using
> IBM PC-Server 320 machines with dual Pentiums and SCO UNIX.
> 
> >       I'd guess that 60-$100K would suffice.  What do other folks think
> > about this?
> 
> It can be done for that price. A lot depends on what brands of hardware,
> which UNIX, which database (licensing issues) and who is doing the work.
> Some high-priced consulting firms can be absolute bumbling timewasters.
> People who choose their suppliers and products carefully always pay less
> in the long run.

  We typically recomend just about what Micheal has stated here for
heavy hit queary DB systems.  I would also add that a redundant server,
may be in order as well.  Raid 5 is definatly the way to go.  It might
also be a good idea to look at an auto archive facility to other than
a DAT or tale device for recovery.  Something like a Pinnicle, optical
or read write CD Jukbox.  This would add nearly $40k however. 
> 
> >       Remember this this is a back-end organization.  It's "customers"
> > are the member registrars.  Initially, that is a very small number.  After
> > two years, it's still only around 40-50.  My guess is that technical
> > support staff are going to be more important than a purely
> > adminitrative/receptionis kind of person.
> 
> If you have on-staff tech people with some sort of manager to oversee them
> as opposed to outside consultants, then I would agree that there is
> no need for a secretary since office visits and phone calls (other than
> faxes) will be rare.

  I would tend to agree, with one possible exception.  Using a managment 
group the specilizes in this type of operation might provide some cost
savings under a long term contract managment arrangment.
> 
> Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
> Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-604-546-3049
> http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com