Re: Install and RAID
Michael Neuffer wrote:
>
> Sometimes a "MP mobo" just ain't enough. Once you stop thinking
> in standard consumer categories, you will be able to see that.
>
> Think in terms of reducing OS complexity, offloading IO processing
> and also saved {C,G}PU cycles. Reliability, servicabiliy, scalability.
>
> Almost the only advantage that Software RAID has is, that it is CHEAP.
>
It is CHEAP isnt it, much CHEAPer.
Its cheapness means you can more redundancy.
> It is certainly enough if all you want to do is a RAID-1 of
> a pair of drives but not in terrabytes or more of storage.
>
> Why do you think IBM is still successful with their Mainframes ?
> They do not have that much CPU power, but they can process an
> enormous amount of IO. How do you think they accomplish this ?
> By offloading the IO to IO processors.
>
So you think mainframes are a good long term growth industry ?
> The hardware RAID controller, at least one that is worthy of this name
> is just that (only smaller). An intelligent IO subsystem that offloads
> complexity from the main system and lets it do what it is supposed to.
>
> For me somebody that argues like you, is also somebody who thinks
> that Winmodems are the best thing since sliced bread.
>
hmm, nice analogy (but no i dont like hardware i cant use), i think what
it comes down to is computing power, the best value for money components
will always be those that are have the highest volumes.
There is a sweet spot, high powered stuff has a higher prcie/performance
ratio, but so does lower power stuff, hard drives especially (where
performance is size).
Maybe it would help you if you considered a server built with standard
consumer components to be one fancy hardware raid device.
Ever heard of google ? If mainframes and "special" hardware are so good,
given their high IO demands they should dump the thousands of "CHEAP"
computers that can successfully handle high IO and get a mainframe from
IBM.
Glenn
Reply to: