# New Data Server Online



## Dragoneer (Jul 12, 2011)

We've brought our new data server online (8X 2TB hard drives) online, and will begin porting over data immediately. There should be minimal to no impact on the site while we transfer data over.

Once we have the new data server online, tested, we will be pulling Trogdor offline to upgrade its drives (6X 2TB) to offer better data redundancy.


----------



## Eevee (Jul 12, 2011)

Why is there still no official mention that FA is full?  That makes this sound like a grand new stride in capacity, rather than a rushed necessity.  Or maybe that's the idea.

By "data redundancy", do you mean actual distributed storage, or just backups?  (Do backups exist now?  I get the impression they don't.)


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 12, 2011)

Eevee said:


> Why is there still no official mention that FA is full?  That makes this sound like a grand new stride in capacity, rather than a rushed necessity.  Or maybe that's the idea.
> 
> By "data redundancy", do you mean actual distributed storage, or just backups?  (Do backups exist now?  I get the impression they don't.)


Because we cleared out several GB (I recall upwards of 40?) of storage on the main site, so it isn't full, not at risk of filling up at this time.

And yes, distributed storage. We're working on that, and will be adding another backup server with 12TB of additional space in the next month or two (replacing Bahamat, our current backup server, which we are taking offline).


----------



## Eevee (Jul 12, 2011)

Regardless, the machine _was full_ at some point, resulting in numerous upload failures and a sudden mass voluntary purging of art to "save FA".  Not even acknowledging such an event on any official medium is tacky at best.

What kind of distributed storage?  Will it be failure-tolerant, or are you wasting twice the space by bolting distributed storage on top of RAID?  Is the art symlink thing actually fixed now?


----------



## Accountability (Jul 12, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Because we cleared out several GB (I recall upwards of 40?) of storage on the main site, so it isn't full, not at risk of filling up at this time.
> 
> And yes, distributed storage. We're working on that, and will be adding another backup server with 12TB of additional space in the next month or two (replacing Bahamat, our current backup server, which we are taking offline).


 
Why are you focusing on adding redundancy for the filesystem (something that's never really had a major problem before) and not adding redundancy for the database (which continues to be a problem and crashes randomly)?


----------



## Pravda (Jul 12, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> And yes, distributed storage. We're working on that,



Okay. So what's being _done_ in this aspect? As far as I know, you still don't have a webapp that's capable of being _deployed_ in a distributed fashion, so I'd really like to know what your plan is for redundant storage. Something besides "we're working on it".


----------



## greaseyote (Jul 12, 2011)

I don't believe it. There's no way anything happens this smoothly on FA.


----------



## timoran (Jul 13, 2011)

Distributed storage might or might NOT prevent the type of problem that was encountered recently.

Proper planning and appropriate site to userbase communications WILL prevent and mitigate those problems, and those were not done.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 15, 2011)

Why pull it offline when you can just use those new ones? It's a gain of 16 TB instead of 4 TB.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 15, 2011)

Oh cheeseits, it crashed.


----------



## Werewolfhero (Jul 15, 2011)

Glaice said:


> Why pull it offline when you can just use those new ones? It's a gain of 16 TB instead of 4 TB.


 
Probably taking one offline to check/replace hardware, update coding and software, stuff like that.


----------

