Re: "big" machines running Debian?
Alex Samad <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:06:30PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:54:11AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote:
>> > most enterprise site don;t use 1TB size disk, if you want performance
>> > you go spindles, there might be 8 disks (number pulled from the air -
>> > based on raid6 + spares) behind 1TB
>> And if you want disk space and are serving across a 1Gbit ethernet link,
>> you don't give a damn about spindles and go for cheap abundant storage,
>> which means SATA.
>> Not everyone is running a database server. Some people just have files.
>> Raid5/6 of a few SATA drives can easily saturate 1Gbit. And for a very
>> small fraction of the cost of SAS drives.
> true, depends on whos rule of thumb you use. I have seen places where
> mandate fc drives only in the data center - get very expensive when you
> want lots of disk space.
The only argument I see for FC is a switched sorage network. As soon
as you dedicate a storage box to one (or two) servers there is really
no point in FC. Just use a SAS box with SATA disks inside. It is a)
faster, b) simpler, c) works better and d) costs a fraction.
And hey, we are talking big disks space for a single system here. Not
sharing one 16TB raid box with 100 hosts.
> Also the disk space might not be need for feeding across the network, db
> aren't the only thing that chew through disk space.
> the op did specific enterprise, I was think very large enterprise, the
> sort of people who mandate scsi or sas only drives in their data centre
They have way to much money and not enough brain.
PS: The I in RAID stands for inexpensive.