Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.
1307 views

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

So, based on that analogy, if we have one large pool - "DATA" with a
number of volumes in it and the pool becomes corrupted, we lose all of
the data on all of the volumes?


Massimo Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BP wrote:
>
>>NW 6.5 SP3 SBS
>>
>>Are there any advantages and/or disadvantages in creating separate NSS
>>pools for spearate "data" volumes? That is for example, we may have 8
>>data volumes (plus SYS:, of course) called Vol1, Vol2...Vol8. My
>>inclination is to create a SYS vol and SYS Pool, and one large "DATA"
>>Pool that will contain Vol1 - Vol8. Is this a bad idea vs. a Vol1
>>pool/Vol1 volume, Vol2 pool/Vol2 volume, etc?

>
>
> You need to rethink what you used to know about volumes with NSS. Think
> of the pools as volumes, and the volumes as directories, that matches
> the Pool/Volume concept of NSS much better. Decide based on that.
>
> CU,

Labels (2)
0 Likes
5 Replies
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

Hi,

BP wrote:
>
> So, based on that analogy, if we have one large pool - "DATA" with a
> number of volumes in it and the pool becomes corrupted, we lose all of
> the data on all of the volumes?


That's correct. Or if you have to do maintenance on the pool (there is
no way to do it on individual volumes), all volumes will be offline
while it runs.

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

Hi,

BP wrote:
>
> All of which sounds like a good argument for "One pool, One Volume"


Actually, no. It all depends on your needs. You could as well say, one
directory, one volume. <g> There are very good reasons to have multiple
directories in the root of a volume, as there are good reasons to split
data between multiple volumes.

However, personally, I would *always* put the SYS: volume into it's own
pool seperated from all other volumes.

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

Also depends if you are running a cluster (or intend to).

A pool is what fails over between cluster nodes - the volumes go with it.



Also depends on if you have a SAN. If your SAN allows you to virtualise
and expand the disk space, you have less need to do it at the OS level
(which you would do with big partitions containing multiple volumes).

Cheers
Ian
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

Yes - SYS: would always get it's own pool in my book.

I think the argument that pool maintenance means temporarily losing
access to all of the vols in the pool is a good reason to do pool<>vol
configuration. Also, if a pool becomes corrupted and can't be recovered
at least the other vols are safe. Of course, we could carry this to the
extreme and say disk<>partition<>pool<>vol all dedicated to a single
entity (VOL_1 for instance) but there is a point of diminishing return...

On the other hand, with many vols, it's a whole lot easier to manage a
single or limited number of pools, i.e. Pool "DATA", Vol_1, _2..._X

So, I guess my question has changed a bit to "What are others doing and
why?"

BP

ps - the answer to Ian's question is - No SAN, no cluster. Plain vanilla
RAID5 in a single box.


Massimo Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BP wrote:
>
>>All of which sounds like a good argument for "One pool, One Volume"

>
>
> Actually, no. It all depends on your needs. You could as well say, one
> directory, one volume. <g> There are very good reasons to have multiple
> directories in the root of a volume, as there are good reasons to split
> data between multiple volumes.
>
> However, personally, I would *always* put the SYS: volume into it's own
> pool seperated from all other volumes.
>
> CU,
> --
> Massimo Rosen
> Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
> No emails please!
> http://www.cfc-it.de

0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: NSS Pools and Volumes concept question

Hi,

BP wrote:
>
> So, I guess my question has changed a bit to "What are others doing and
> why?"


I can give you one example. One of my customers has a server with three
Volumes, data, apps, and mail. Data holds the user files, Apps holds
their applications, which are in the majority started off the server,
and mail contains the groupwise databases.

apps and data share one pool without quotas, as *if* one these two
volumes would be unavailable, the other one would be useless anyways.

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Product Support Forum Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.