1 |
MIkey wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I wasn't really referring to servers by the way, something like NAS devices |
4 |
> would probably be cheaper... Somewhat of a poor man's san. |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
I really like this discussion since I struggled with it for an entire |
8 |
month at the end of last year so don't take my nitpicking as personal. |
9 |
:-) You can probably tell which way I went, but I'd really like to see |
10 |
if their are things I didn't consider. Also I really like to see numbers |
11 |
since statement like "A NAS is cheaper" might be true, but saying "A NAS |
12 |
is $x from xxx.com" is a much better statement and at this scale it's |
13 |
all about your spreadsheet-fu. |
14 |
|
15 |
Running through the Dell storage page you end up spending $20k (list) |
16 |
for their 12 SATA drive NAS device w/ 3year NBD, dual PS, etc. RAID 6 it |
17 |
up and you've got 5TB usable. I'm sure there are cheaper options (feel |
18 |
free to point them out), but I don't think you're going to save that |
19 |
much over going directly to an iSCSI/NFS SAN with a second or third tier |
20 |
vendor... ie not Netapp or EMC. And you've got to manage x number of |
21 |
boxes, don't get volume management, snapshots, etc, and still have to |
22 |
shuffle data around manually for backups or at least hot storage. |
23 |
|
24 |
How about the question, "Is losing 20% of your data any better than |
25 |
losing 100% of your data?" IMO data loss is data loss whether it's |
26 |
complete or partial. Of course assuming you have backups restoring 20% |
27 |
is easier so it's possible I'm wrong here. I'm still not buying the |
28 |
scenario where managing nine single points of failure is better than |
29 |
managing one. And I think I can eliminate all the single points in a |
30 |
single large system easier then rewriting my application to round robin |
31 |
across 15 data stores that contain partial backups of each other. |
32 |
|
33 |
kashani |
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |