vtl
02-06-2006, 05:27 AM
It'd be nice if unixshell# offered additional storage (e.g., on an external machine) for sale, which we could mount over the network in VMS. This would have several uses:
We could use it to backup a VM (or data in them) in whatever way we saw fit (e.g., in a way which wouldn't require shutting down the VM). It would relieve the anxiety that some failure would hose the VM's filesystem, thus forcing a restore from a possibly quite-out-of-date snapshot.
We could use it as additional storage (e.g., if one wanted to host a data-intensive, but possibly low-usage website).
We could use a VM as an offsite backup server to machines which we may have elsewhere.
Or we could use a VM to offer other file storage services to outside machines (e.g., via WebDAV).
Etc.
For the first two purposes, it'd be nice if transfers to/from the file server didn't "cost" us in terms of our transfer limits. This could be accomplished by making the server only live on an "Intranet" (accessible only to the VMs), so that any access from "outside" would have to go through the VMs. For the third and fourth purposes, any usage from an outside machine would have to go through a VM anyway (though it'd be nice if buying extra storage also bumped up our transfer limits).
It'd be nice if this storage were very reliable and backed up regularly. Since it would be accessed in a different way, you could set up backups however you like (so you could presumably make all the storage live under a big filesystem which you backed up file-by-file, as opposed to in the VMs which you have no choice but to back up entire "partitions"). I assume that there are lots of purpose-built storage servers/arrays (of varying prices and capabilities) which would fill this role. On the bright side, a single "server" could then really serve a massive amount of storage.
Costwise, this should be compared to the space offered by web hosting companies -- it's not too hard to find 20+ GB storage (as "web space") for less than $10/month. Granted, they're probably way-overselling, but you could too (and you wouldn't even have to worry about overselling CPU or network bandwidth for this). Or you could offer pay-for-usage plans (e.g., a small fixed amount of money per month, plus $N/GB).
We could use it to backup a VM (or data in them) in whatever way we saw fit (e.g., in a way which wouldn't require shutting down the VM). It would relieve the anxiety that some failure would hose the VM's filesystem, thus forcing a restore from a possibly quite-out-of-date snapshot.
We could use it as additional storage (e.g., if one wanted to host a data-intensive, but possibly low-usage website).
We could use a VM as an offsite backup server to machines which we may have elsewhere.
Or we could use a VM to offer other file storage services to outside machines (e.g., via WebDAV).
Etc.
For the first two purposes, it'd be nice if transfers to/from the file server didn't "cost" us in terms of our transfer limits. This could be accomplished by making the server only live on an "Intranet" (accessible only to the VMs), so that any access from "outside" would have to go through the VMs. For the third and fourth purposes, any usage from an outside machine would have to go through a VM anyway (though it'd be nice if buying extra storage also bumped up our transfer limits).
It'd be nice if this storage were very reliable and backed up regularly. Since it would be accessed in a different way, you could set up backups however you like (so you could presumably make all the storage live under a big filesystem which you backed up file-by-file, as opposed to in the VMs which you have no choice but to back up entire "partitions"). I assume that there are lots of purpose-built storage servers/arrays (of varying prices and capabilities) which would fill this role. On the bright side, a single "server" could then really serve a massive amount of storage.
Costwise, this should be compared to the space offered by web hosting companies -- it's not too hard to find 20+ GB storage (as "web space") for less than $10/month. Granted, they're probably way-overselling, but you could too (and you wouldn't even have to worry about overselling CPU or network bandwidth for this). Or you could offer pay-for-usage plans (e.g., a small fixed amount of money per month, plus $N/GB).