Re: Reasonable maximum package size ?

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

On 06/11/07 12:28, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:59:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:31:37AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > Diskspace *is* a problem for mirrors, as is bandwidth in many countries.
> > > > Also, you should think about this issue not just in the context of the
> > > > single package you are interested in but as a general policy.
> > >   Honnestly, no, this is not true anymore nowadays. With a 500Gb sata
> > > hard drive, you're able to have a full debian mirror (all archs). Such a
> > > disk is around 100€ nowadays.
> > ... but it will break down in three months with the typical usage
> > pattern of a public Debian mirror.
> >
> > A typical 300GB server-class hotpluggable SATA or SAS disk is quite a
> > bit more expensive than a typical desktop-class 500GB hard disk, and for
> > a RAID setup that will actually survive the breakdown of a number of
> > moving parts parts, you'll need at least four or five of them.
>
> Actual data seems to show the cheap desktop disks are not worse than
> so-called server-class disks.

If your data center infrastructure is based around SCSI or SAS, then 
it's irrelevant how much better or worse they are.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!