Re: "big" machines running Debian?
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:35:01AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote:
> I would have to dissagree, some times the guidelines that you set for
> your data storage network mandate having the reliability (or the
> performance) of scsi (or now sas), they could be valid business
> requirements.
Well if you set it up right, the dual ported sas drives certainly have
the ability to elliminate almost every "single point of failure" in the
storage system. Far beyond scsi (even SATA is beyond scsi in that
respect, while IDE was not).
> Traditionally scsi drives had a longer warranty period, were meant to be
> of better build that cheap ata (sata) drives.
Hmm, in my previous job (about 6 years ago now) I never had more drive
failures than with IBM hot swap scsi disks. Seemed like there was always
a failed one. I was quite disappointed. It was not like we had
particularly many disks in use.
> Although this line is getting blurred a bit.
>
> Unless we talk about a specific situation, storage as other areas of IT
> are very fluid, and there are many solutions to each problem.
>
> Look at the big data centers of google and such that use pizza box's
> machine dies who cares its clustered and they will get around to fixing
> it at some point. to 4-8 nods clusters of oracle that are just about
> maxed out, one server goes down and ....
With enough redundancy designed in, you can use very cheap components.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: