On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other thing to consider is the duty-cycle of the box. Is it to be > left on 24/7, 7/5, etc? How much of that time will it be actively used > and at what intensity? What throughput are you wanting to serve and how > many simultaneous requests? As in, is SATA what you want or do you want > SCSI/SAS? Remember that you can plunk SATA drives onto SAS controllers > to start and upgrade to SAS later. I would assume that the manufactures > still use the SATA/SAS divide for the quality-control devide when they > make drives like they used to with IDE/SCSI but I may be wrong. This is for home use only. Definitely not 24x7 and max maybe 2 concurrent requests. I am looking for stable and reliable operation rather than blazing fast performance. Is moving to FFS2 a good idea? > > > Depending on what you are serving, it may be beneficial to have the OS > on a separate spindle. If you're in the midst of serving a data stream > you may not want the drive to have to seek to run something for the OS, > or to fetch swap. yup. OS will sit on an older 80GB SATA drive > > When planning the box, remember the memory requirements for fscking a > filesystem (I think I remember 1 MB/GB) so that it doesn't hit swap. If > you're talking about one TB then that suggests you need 1 GB ram > minimum. 1GB is the plan - maybe another 512MB later > > > Upon which will you be backing your data (isn't English wonderful). > What will you be using for backup for the 1TB of data? Remember, raid > only protects against some drive failure modes, not controller failure, > PSU, MB, disaster, etc. I am thinking maybe an external USB? since they are so cheap nowadays... > > > Enjoy. > > Doug.
