On 8/16/06, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 12:55 AM 8/17/2006 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > > We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data
> > > so PATA would work just as well.
> >
> >I fear you missed the point. This is hardly about SATA vs. PATA,
> >
On 8/17/06, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Karsten McMinn wrote:
You might find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBF useful.
I appreciate the lecture. Well, not really. I'll
take my 1.2million hr [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs
a 700thousand hour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bye.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Karsten McMinn wrote:
interfaces aside, S/P-ATA drive mtbf has gotten much better which makes
sata storage really yummy. (mtbfs over 1million hours).
You might find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBF useful.
--
Antti Harri
On 8/16/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are other reasons why SAS/SCSI is more expensive than SATA/PATA besides
reliability. I won't rehash them again.
interfaces aside, S/P-ATA drive mtbf has gotten much better which makes
sata storage really yummy. (mtbfs over 1million
thus Greg Thomas spake:
On 8/16/06, Ioan Nemes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jaye Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/17 9:25 am >>>
> We switched from SCSI to SATA, and have seen no significant
difference in
> reliability
You didn't looked hard enugh!
> and a whole lot of savings in $
At 12:55 AM 8/17/2006 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data
> so PATA would work just as well.
I fear you missed the point. This is hardly about SATA vs. PATA,
but rather about ATA vs. SCSI.
Au contraire - the argument is 'RAID',
On 8/16/06, Ioan Nemes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jaye Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/17 9:25 am >>>
> We switched from SCSI to SATA, and have seen no significant
difference in
> reliability
You didn't looked hard enugh!
> and a whole lot of savings in $'s.
Not on the long term
I'm not arguing that in the highest end usage SCSI is still the way to go.
Still is, and will probably remain that way for another decade or so maybe
longer.
IIRC original question was appx 80GB of *tertiary* storage, not main storage
for a zillion row database cluster spread out over a huge com
>>> Jaye Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/17 9:25 am >>>
> We switched from SCSI to SATA, and have seen no significant
difference in
> reliability
You didn't looked hard enugh!
> and a whole lot of savings in $'s.
Not on the long term, very bad purchasing decision!
> But we don't buy
> Heck, you can get near petabyte storage arrays now from several top vendors,
> and guess what? Most of them are using SATA. I believe Netapp is using
> SATA drives in some of their systems, and anybody who knows Netapp knows they
> don't release anything unless it's solid, and won't damage t
> I was over ruled.
Ok, it looks like your company has taken most of the decisions
and all you still need to decide is the ATA RAID brand.
> We'll probably go with the 3Ware
I fail to remember hearing anything about that, either good or bad.
I do remeber the first brand Marco praised was LSI ami
Greg - Thanks for that link!
Ingo - We are leaning toward ATA since the unit is used for tertiary
storage. Primary backup is to tape, stored off-site, and secondary backup is
to a SCSI based system in a different bldg. So yes, its a budgetary issue.
Though I do not understand why we need triple co
There are several differences between now and then.
Anybody using the software based raid cards, like the cheap promise/highpoint
stuff is asking for trouble, no question.
However, vendors have made 24x7 SATA drives available, they're just not
the ones you see at the cheapest prices on pricewatch
> We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data
> so PATA would work just as well.
I fear you missed the point. This is hardly about SATA vs. PATA,
but rather about ATA vs. SCSI.
If you do really need reliability, you should seriously consider SCSI
RAID. Yes, it definit
On 8/16/06, Steve B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data so
PATA would work just as well. I did not see any docs on the LSI site for the
150-2. A Google search on it had produced a couple of listings that
indicated it was not hardware RA
We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data so
PATA would work just as well. I did not see any docs on the LSI site for the
150-2. A Google search on it had produced a couple of listings that
indicated it was not hardware RAID. I'll try and dig around some more on the
LSI
On 8/16/06, Greg Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/15/06, Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Steve B wrote:
>
> > Our company has a small OpenBSD box colocated with a local ISP that we use
> > for tertiary stoage of some data. I'd like to setup RAID-1 to provide
On 16 Aug 2006, at 15:58, Bernd Schoeller wrote:
>>> If you are stuck on SATA, the Areca stuff is a few weeks away from
>>> totally rocking. And it is cheap.
>>
>> I can see that these guys also freely provide API documentation and
>> code:
>>
>> http://www.areca.com.tw/support/index/dc1120.
On 16 Aug 2006, at 15:58, Bernd Schoeller wrote:
>>> If you are stuck on SATA, the Areca stuff is a few weeks away from
>>> totally rocking. And it is cheap.
>>
>> Does this mean that it will be supported by bioctl soon?
>
> Is there any other way to understand Theo's comment? ;-)
Huzzah for ope
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:12:45AM +0100, Gaby Vanhegan wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006, at 06:24, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > If you are stuck on SATA, the Areca stuff is a few weeks away from
> > totally rocking. And it is cheap.
>
> I can see that these guys also freely provide API documentation and
On 16 Aug 2006, at 06:24, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> If you are stuck on SATA, the Areca stuff is a few weeks away from
> totally rocking. And it is cheap.
I can see that these guys also freely provide API documentation and
code:
http://www.areca.com.tw/support/index/dc1120.htm
Does this
> Our company has a small OpenBSD box colocated with a local ISP that we use
> for tertiary stoage of some data. I'd like to setup RAID-1 to provide some
> basic redundancy of that data. I'm looking at either an Arco Duplidisk DD3
> or 3Ware 7006-2 card. I've ruled out an Adaptec 2400A based on Th
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Steve B wrote:
> Our company has a small OpenBSD box colocated with a local ISP that we use
> for tertiary stoage of some data. I'd like to setup RAID-1 to provide some
> basic redundancy of that data. I'm looking at either an Arco Duplidisk DD3
> or 3Ware 7006-2 card. I've r
Our company has a small OpenBSD box colocated with a local ISP that we use
for tertiary stoage of some data. I'd like to setup RAID-1 to provide some
basic redundancy of that data. I'm looking at either an Arco Duplidisk DD3
or 3Ware 7006-2 card. I've ruled out an Adaptec 2400A based on Theo's
con
24 matches
Mail list logo
