Thanks all, for replying.
-Santanu
On 15/03/2011 12:05, Sam Skipsey wrote:
> Oh, well, in that case, I'd just take it down (marked DISABLED).
>
> Sam
>
> On 15 March 2011 12:03, Santanu Das<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Yes, that's the thing I'm worrying about; it shouldn't take more than 30
>> mins to come back online.
>>
>> -Santanu
>>
>>
>> On 15/03/2011 11:58, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>> It might take days to drain a data server. Depending on the length of the
>>> maintainance intervention I wouldn't suggest to drain. You can leave with
>>> unavailable data if you put the site in downtime to alert shifters that
>>> there might be problems.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> alessandra
>>>
>>> On 15/03/2011 11:49, Santanu Das wrote:
>>>> What actually happens we drain the pool node?
>>>>
>>>> -Santanu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/03/2011 11:39, Sam Skipsey wrote:
>>>>> What do you mean by "without disturbing the entire storage system"?
>>>>> Marking the filesystems on it disabled and then turning it off will
>>>>> work - but obviously, the files present on it will be inaccessible.
>>>>> You'd have to drain it to avoid that, though ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 March 2011 11:35, Santanu Das<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>> Greetings experts,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the best why to take individual disk-server down (for
>>>>>> maintenance
>>>>>> etc.) without disturbing the entire storage system? Any suggestion(s)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Santanu
>>>>>>
|