Re: multi-TB diskarrays ???
>
> Since it's a medical imaging repository (that has all *sorts* of
> legal pitfalls), I'd not even think about IDE...
If you want security you should engrave the data to stone, or press gold
plated discs and lock them in or similar ;-)
Risking a flame war (please don't) At least two of our 75 new scsi disks
have failed within a few months. I hope they don't keep dying with that
speed ones we start to actually use them... Some people claim that the
(mechanical) hardware is the same in both scsi and ide today. I don't
work for a disk manufacturer so I naturally can't validate these
"hersays".
> Lets see: 4TB, using 180GB disks gives us ceil(4096GB/180GB) = 23
> disks.
>
> Given that you'll want hot-swapping RAID5 redundancy, let's bump
> that up to 29 disks. (You'll want one on-site just in case a disk
> pukes.)
How much performance do you need? The bigger disks, the less heads
reading/writing at the same time.
> Also, the clustering software allows the sysadmin to present the
> cluster to the world as a single node, and load-balances incoming
> IP connections. Thus, when you add a node (SCSI-clustering allows
> for 4 nodes), or when the aforementioned node gets shot, it is
> transparent to the world.
The redundancy part works fine, but the load balancing is not that great
for high volumes (a few Gbit/sec).
> Once it's all implemented, I'd love to hear how much you spent
> on it. If it's less than $75K, I'll be really surprised.
Yes it would be _very_ interesting, please drop a note once you've done.
Sincerely,
Emil
Reply to: