Slashdot Log In
Making Use of Terabytes of Unused Storage
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat Feb 09, 2008 09:28 AM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
from the something-to-think-about dept.
kernspaltung writes "I manage a network of roughly a hundred Windows boxes, all of them with hard drives of at least 40GB — many have 80GB drives and larger. Other than what's used by the OS, a few applications, and a smattering of small documents, this space is idle. What would be a productive use for these terabytes of wasted space? Does any software exist that would enable pooling this extra space into one or more large virtual networked drives? Something that could offer the fault-tolerance and ease-of-use of ZFS across a network of PCs would be great for small-to-medium organizations."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical IT guy (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
vista? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:vista? - DFS (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:vista? - DFS (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why SAN manufacturers have come up with "thin provisioning". NetApp is quite good it, read more here [netapp.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:vista? - DFS (Score:5, Informative)
Running DFS (to serve files) on Windows XP clients? What are you smoking?
From Microsoft TechNet:
The servers that will participate in DFS Replication must run Windows Server 2003 R2.
It is possible to use DFS Namespaces when domain controllers and namespace servers run a mix of Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Server 2003 with SP1, Windows Server 2003 without SP1, and Windows 2000 Server, but some functionality is disabled or available inconsistently, depending on the operating systems on the servers.
From: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/1aa249c0-40f3-4974-b67f-e650b602415e1033.mspx?mfr=true [microsoft.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you can count DFS as a big NOGO.
Re:It's been done by Microsoft: DFS NameSpaces (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
been done already? (Score:3, Informative)
And, if you're claiming some kind of market race, you might want to check for relevant dates concerning ZFS [wikipedia.org]
Of course, if you're just trolling, ignore me.
Re:vista? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.uniquepeek.com/viewpage.php?page_id=1517 [uniquepeek.com]
Parent
easy! (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely! Just hook them up directly to the internet before you update the machines, wait a few minutes, and voila! They'll be filled up with extra files in no time! Hey, you didn't say anything about wanting to be in control of what gets put on the machines...
Not without heavy utilization of other resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason is the obscenely large amount of power required to use the space given a few gigabytes requires the whole machine to be running, and uses it's CPU which can't be less than 21Watts itself.
It's actually cheaper to get a 1TB drive and use it elsewhere than use the power on so many desktops (or worse, servers). Even with the desktops in use by active users.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As is my understanding, resources are utilised, while tools are used. He was correct in its usage.
Re:Not without heavy *use* of other resources (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not without heavy *use* of other resources (Score:5, Funny)
The solution is obvious. We need to think outside the box and raise the bar when it comes to language... someone needs to step up to the plate and bring something new to the table. I'm thinking of someone I have synergy with, not just the type that goes for the low-hanging fruit.
Ooh.... he's spinning nicely. Another couple of Orwells and we'll have enough electricity to power the world
Parent
Re:Not without heavy *use* of other resources (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Sesquipedalian verbalization (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you really have control of the boxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
--Marc
Re: (Score:2)
Download and mirror the Internet... (Score:5, Funny)
not enough info (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:not enough info (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Maybe move with the times? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it cost effective to reclaim that (small) space? Probably not. My suggestion is to realize that no-one tries to save clock cycles any more and maybe this is the way disk storage is probably heading that way.
Space is not that important any longer (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's assume that the average computer has 80 GB of storage. Multiply that by 100 and you get 8 TB of space. That's what you can get into one or two computers nowadays without plunging out too much cash.
What's more interesting is how much processing power you have as well as how fast the internet connection is.
Re:Space is not that important any longer (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with this and face this question all the time in work. Disks are cheap, storage systems aren't. If this is for a business that requires reasonable uptime, then the only solution would be to implement a SAN using Fibre Channel or iSCSI and then take out the drives. With the right array, all of a sudden those drives become superfluous (you decide if boot from SAN is right for you), management is easier and you'll be able to get a lot of reuse out of the drives.
Now a lot of people will start to question the cost of doing all of this and it isn't cheap, however you have to analyze the data correctly. We migrated 200 servers from DAS to a SAN and had our money back within 12 months. Add on top of that the implementation of VMs, all of a sudden those 200 went to 20. That's a big difference in cost of ownership.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SATA is a drive interface spec. NAS is a generic description of a type of storage device. iSCSI is a communication protocol, as is GigE.
It's being used as storage for an Oracle database server used by around a hundred simultaneous users.
By buying commodity parts from Fry's I managed to get 3T usable for under $2000.
Oh, and I had fun building it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space is not that important any longer (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are really only using it for the OS, a few applications, and a few docs why not use diskless workstations?
Less power, heat, and fewer things to break.
In other words don't use all those drives, get ride of all of them.
Parent
GlusterFS (Score:3, Informative)
You definitely can't run Windows in order to utilize this, but it should be a minimal effort to setup a quick netboot lab to test it with.
Cheers.
Send them to our troops in Iraq (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Send them to our troops in Iraq (Score:5, Informative)
I've had a chance to read after-action reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 9mm is pretty much a joke. Most of the forces that really rely on hangun stopping power have obtained emergency authorization to bypass normal procurement processes in order to get better handguns using better ammunition. To my knowledge, a modern
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, pistol rounds are pistol rounds, and rifle rounds are rifle rounds.
Next time he should test it with pretty much any centerfire rifle.
9mm vs .45 (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite all this, I think that when it comes down to the army, it's mostly because of ammunition selection. Troops are issued non-expanding FMJ ammunition, which leads to 9mm over penetrating and under performing. The 1911, chambered i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, that doesn't mean that a .45 doesn't have more stopping power than 9mm, just that it wouldn't penetrate the aluminum casing of a hard drive. Fortu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the time comes that I need
Sanmelody (Score:4, Informative)
AFS (Score:5, Informative)
Solution for Linux (Score:2, Informative)
If there's nothing similar for windows, you might be able to run it through cygwin.
Actually, this claims to run on Windows: http://www.vanheusden.com/Loose/nbdsrvr/ [vanheusden.com]
You read my mind! (Score:2)
Our whole organization is about a 1000 Windoze desktops, but I'd like to try it in our local workgroup first (maybe 20 systems). I looked around but couldn't find anything
dCache (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the problem another way... (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to ask yourself why, after more than a decade of research and countless papers and prototypes that address this problem, your PCs storage are still underutilized...
It's harder than it looks to get something reliable. Your PCs have extra capacity because it's cheap, but mining that capacity is not cheap. As other posters have pointed out, putting together (or just purchasing) a server with a few TB of storage is simpler and cheaper, less prone to getting wiped out by a virus, easier to manage and backup.
Birth of the Matrix? (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be a productive use for these terabytes of wasted space?
Well, I had this idea when I read about some Open Source software that allowed distributed storage (sorry, forgot what that was, but by now I am sure it has already been mentioned in this discussion). The idea was this - suppose we have such software for unlimited distributed storage, so that people can download it and volunteer some unused space on their HD for a storage pool. Then suppose we have some software for distributed computing like we have for the SETI program. Now we have ziggabytes of storage and googleplexflops of processing power, what can we do with that? How about, for one thing, storing the entire internet (using compression, of course) on that endless distributed storage, and then running a decentralized, independent internet via P2P software? The distributed database could be constantly updated from the original sources, and the distributed storage then becomes in effect a giant cache that contains the entire internet. Now we could employ the distributed computing software to datamine that cache and we could have searching independent of Google or Yahoo or M$FT. Beyond that we could develop some AI that uses all that computing power and all that data to do... what? - I'm not sure yet. Just thought I would throw this out there to perhaps maybe get stepped on, or who knows, inspire further thought.
May I recommend against this? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. You will noticeably reduce the lifespan of the discs. (Which can anger cost conscious supervisors)
2. Doing ongoing hardware maintenance, because of this reduced lifespan, on closed, used by others, boxes is a *serious* pain.
Storage setups make hot swapping discs easy, trying to do this with full blown systems just gets tiresome. The solution I eventually came up with was the following.
Implement a two tiered hardware replacement cycle where you reduce the time a user is allowed to keep any hard drive in their box before replacement. Then using the still reasonably good drives, create a centralized storage solution in which the drives can live out the rest of their useful spans. Data security, user happiness, and redundancy are all good selling points of this system. You still have to deal with monkeying around in user boxes but if it's on a schedule and it nets you more drives, it's not so bad.
-Ian
Allmydata "Tahoe" (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More like your post being a slashvertisement.