On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:28:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> writes: > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 09:50:06AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> writes: > >> > > [snip] > > And now they have to learn that we have new technologies. New > requirements and new solutions. What was good 5 years ago isn't > neccessarily good today. Saddly enough a lot of purse strings seem to > be made of stone and only move in geological timespans. :) some do and some don't - the old ideology of nobody got sacked for buying IBM > [snip] > Could be. If you build storage for a DB you want SAS disks and > raid1. If you build a petabyte storage cluster for files >1GB then you > rather want 3 times as many SATA disks. An XYZ only rule will always > be bad for some use cases. True I had a customer buy a 8T fc disk array lustre based and then they expanded it soon afterwards > > > Traditionally scsi drives had a longer warranty period, were meant to be > > of better build that cheap ata (sata) drives. > > > > Although this line is getting blurred a bit. > > There surely is a difference between a 24/7, 5 year warranty, server > SCSI disk and a cheap home use SATA disk. But then again there are > also 24/7, 5 year warranty, server SATA disks. > > I don't think there is any quality difference anymore between the scsi > and sata server disks. > > > Unless we talk about a specific situation, storage as other areas of IT > > are very fluid, and there are many solutions to each problem. > > Exactly. > > > 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 .... > > Same here. Nobody builds HA into a HPC cluster. If a node fails the > cluster runs with less node. Big deal. you would be surprised how many people want HA head nodes > > Saddly enough for storage there is a distinct lack of > software/filesystems that can work with such a lax reliability. With > the growing space requirements and stalling size increase in disk size > there are more and more components in a storage cluster. I feel that > redundancy has to move to a higher level. Away from the disk level > where you have raid and towards true distributed redundancy across the > storage cluster as a whole. yes it would be nice. My thoughts are we haven't seen any big jumps in data storage for a while, nothing like we are seeing in memory and cpu speed. > > MfG > Goswin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > > -- "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush 08/05/2004 Washington, DC
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature