Subject:
|
Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:06:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm%StopSpammers%.org
|
Viewed:
|
1358 times
|
| |
|
|
Ray Sanders <rsanders@svic.net> wrote:
> I hope that you are planning to use this extra storage for mirroring (I
> forget the numbers... RAID-1 ?). Mirroring will reduce your critical
> path failure from a HD, but will (remember statistics) halve the MTBF.
> With one drive at 50k hours MTBF, two drives would be 25k hours. So in
> the end you really end up with 120GB per boxen, which should be plenty.
Yes, there's going to be basically insane amounts of redundancy -- not
just live mirroring, but staged images so that any corrupted data isn't
instantly propagated to all the backups.
> GEEK ON
Oh, what, the above part wasn't geeky? :)
> On traditional SCSI vs ATA, mirroring works much better on SCSI because
> SCSI allows the RAID driver to issue seek commands to the multiple
> drives (detached without tieing up the channel) whereas traditional ATA
> would preclude that (required seperate controllers per drive). SATA may
> have addressed that, but I'm not sure.
With SATA, you only *get* one drive per channel. So no worries there.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) I hope that you are planning to use this extra storage for mirroring (I forget the numbers... RAID-1 ?). Mirroring will reduce your critical path failure from a HD, but will (remember statistics) halve the MTBF. With one drive at 50k hours (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
