| 1 |
kashani wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'm not sold on the Google approach. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Assuming someone was to build nine data servers we're talking roughly |
| 6 |
> $3k per server (dual CPU, 4GB ram, raid 5 sata) or $30k with shipping |
| 7 |
> and tax. On top of that I now have to manage nine boxes and manage my |
| 8 |
> data in nine different places. These 9 servers are going to pull 18A of |
| 9 |
> power and uses 18U of rack space. Whereas $35k gets me an NFS/iSCSI/cifs |
| 10 |
> head (of admittedly third tier storage) and two 16 x 500GB shelves or |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Obviously any approach has its ups and downs, the bottom line being how many |
| 13 |
resources can you throw at the problem. Regardless, running your entire |
| 14 |
business on a single piece of hardware is eventual suicide, because it will |
| 15 |
eventually fail. Having backups is great, but you still have to run your |
| 16 |
business if the equipment fails and you can't serve the images from backup |
| 17 |
medium. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The ultimate solution involve a lot more than $30k, I will guarantee you |
| 20 |
that much ;) What it all boils down to is how much is your business worth |
| 21 |
to you and how much risk are you willing to take? When I don't have enough |
| 22 |
resources for the "ultimate solutions" (money) I prefer to minimize the |
| 23 |
risk by distributing the load with cheaper hardware... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I wasn't really referring to servers by the way, something like NAS devices |
| 26 |
would probably be cheaper... Somewhat of a poor man's san. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives