Re: [Nolug] NAS

We've got one running from when SunGard rolled it in after 9/11.
DEC made real quality kit back then...

On 2010-04-10 15:16, Chris Jones wrote:
> Yeah, and those smaller drives will cost 3x more than a 2TB SATA
> drive. It's insane, but after you work with servers long enough, you
> realize that the SAS and SCSI hard drives have a much higher build
> quality than the desktop models. It's insane when you set up a server
> with RAID5, leave it running 24/7 for 6 years straight, and you might
> have one hard drive failure. I love their reliability.
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>> The one "bad" thing about high-capacity drives is, well, their high
>> capacity.
>>
>> Back In The Day, you'd create a 1TB RAID-10 set out of 14 SCSI-320 146GB
>> drives and 4 or 5 SCSI cards. The parallelism made for very high IO rates,
>> but at the cost of a shelf or two, 2 or 4 PSUs, a handful of BBC SCSI cards,
>> cables, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Serious coin! More if your existing racks
>> are already full and you thus need to also buy a new rack, fans, shelves,
>> blah blah. REALLY Serious Coin, especially if the corporation mandates Tier
>> 1 vendors.
>>
>> Even now, for "Enterprise" production (as opposed to archival) work, I'd
>> spec 320GB or 146GB 6Gbps 15K SAS drives, depending on how much speed is
>> needed.
>>
>> On 2010-04-10 14:45, John Souvestre wrote:
>>> Hi Ron.
>>>
>>> Right. I believe that Raid 10 beats Raid 5 in all of the specs. I
>>> certainly
>>> prefer it.
>>>
>>> The only possible down side is that you need an even number of drives. So
>>> where
>>> a 3 drive Raid 5 might be large enough, you would need a 4th drive to go
>>> with
>>> Raid 10.
>>>
>>> I also echo the comments about not trusting software Raid. I had the
>>> FreeBSD
>>> version fail on two different boxes in the past. On the other hand, I've
>>> had
>>> drive in my Cobalt RaQ fail twice and the OS handled the situation like a
>>> dream.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: owner-nolug@stoney.kellynet.org [mailto:owner-
>>> > nolug@stoney.kellynet.org] On Behalf Of Ron Johnson
>>> > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:39 PM
>>> > To: nolug@nolug.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [Nolug] NAS
>>> > > > RAID5 best of both worlds?? That *highly* debatable, since it's
>>> > write performance stinks. You need scads of BBC to make it effective.
>>> > > On 2010-04-10 14:14, Chris Jones wrote:
>>> > > Well, there's no such thing as raid10 with 2 drives. You need at
>>> least
>>> > > 4 drives for raid10. With 2 drives it would be raid1. Or raid0, but
>>> > > only a fool would put important data on a raid0. ;) raid0 is best
>>> for
>>> > > use as a temporary place for data processing. Raid5 is the best of
>>> both
>>> > > worlds, and is the most cost effective.
>>> > >
>>> > >> On Apr 10, 2010 1:41 PM, "Joey Kelly" <joey@joeykelly.net
>>> > >> <mailto:joey@joeykelly.net>> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Sat April 10 2010 1:29 pm, Petri Laihonen wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Joey Kelly <joey@joeykelly.net
>>> > >> <mailto:joey@joeykelly.net>> wrote:
>>> > >> > > On Sat April 10 2010 1...
>>> > >>
>>> > >> OK, let me be less cryptic.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> RAID5 with 3 drives, or RAID10 with two... fine, lose one drive,
>>> > >> you're still
>>> > >> OK. Forget I even said anything.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> BUT... I do have to step in and complain loudly about software RAID.
>>> > >> If you
>>> > >> don't care about your data, feel free to set up software RAID.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The same thing goes for Fake RAID. If you like your data and want to
>>> > >> keep it,
>>> > >> get a real controller.
>>> >

-- 
Dissent is patriotic, remember?
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org