Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu!kemp
From: kemp@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (John Kemp)
Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?)
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.022712.8221@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <7370372@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 02:27:12 GMT
Lines: 21

Now I am really confused...  Perhaps if I rephrase the question.
If you had an 835, a couple 720's, and a 730, how would you put 
them together?

If I assume that the 835 will not operate in a cluster with the 
700's, my guess is that the two 720's served diskless off of the 
730 would be the most economical arrangement.  The 835 would have
to be accessed via NFS and remote commands.

To complicate the problem, say you have 4 600 MB SCSI disks, a
CD-ROM, a DAT, and an optical jukebox.  Where would you put them?
Or better yet, where would they be most accessible and provide 
the best performance overall to the cluster?

--------  john kemp            (  (  )_  internet - kemp@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
  -----                       (  (   __)   decnet - uiatmb::kemp
   ---    univ of illinois   (_ (   __)    bitnet - {uunet,convex}
   --     dept of atmos sci  .(____).               !uiucuxc!uiatma!kemp
   -      105 s gregory ave    ...          phone - (217) 333-6881
    -     urbana, il 61801    ...             fax - (217) 444-4393

