On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Richard Elling wrote:
> From a space perspective, I can put a TByte on my desktop today. Death
> of the low-end array is assured by bigger drives.
I respectfully disagree. I think there will always be a need for low-end
arrays, regardless of the size of the individual disks.
Richard Elling wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Now with thumper - you are SPoF'd on the motherboard and operating
system - so you're not really getting the availability aspect from
dual controllers .. but given the value - you could easily buy 2 and
still come out ahead .. you'd have to work ou
Richard,
On 8/2/06 11:37 AM, "Richard Elling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now with thumper - you are SPoF'd on the motherboard and operating
>> system - so you're not really getting the availability aspect from dual
>> controllers .. but given the value - you could easily buy 2 and still
>> co
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Now with thumper - you are SPoF'd on the motherboard and operating
system - so you're not really getting the availability aspect from dual
controllers .. but given the value - you could easily buy 2 and still
come out ahead .. you'd have to work out some sort of timely r
On Aug 1, 2006, at 22:23, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
On 8/1/06 10:30 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/workgroup/3510/index.xml
Look at the specs page.
I did.
This is 8 trays, each with 14 disks and two active Fibre channel
attac
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
On 8/1/06 10:30 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/workgroup/3510/index.xml
Look at the specs page.
I did.
This is 8 trays, each with 14 disks and two active Fibre channel
attachments.
That means
Torrey,
On 8/1/06 10:30 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/workgroup/3510/index.xml
>
> Look at the specs page.
I did.
This is 8 trays, each with 14 disks and two active Fibre channel
attachments.
That means that 14 disks, each with a
On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:18, Torrey McMahon wrote:
(I hate when I hit the Send button when trying to change windows)
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken
into account. Making blank
(I hate when I hit the Send button when trying to change windows)
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken into
account. Making blanket statements like, "ZFS & JBODs are always ideal"
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken into
account. Making blanket statements like, "ZFS & JBODs are always ideal"
or "ZFS on top of a raid controller is a bad idea" or "SATA drives ar
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
>
> The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken into
> account. Making blanket statements like, "ZFS & JBODs are always ideal"
> or "ZFS on top of a raid controller is a bad idea" or "SATA drives are
> good enoug
Frank Cusack wrote:
On July 31, 2006 11:32:15 PM -0400 Torrey McMahon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're comparing apples to a crate of apples. A more useful
comparison would be something along
the lines a single R0 LUN on a 3510 with controller to a single
3510-JBOD with ZFS across all the
d
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:32 PM
You might want to check the specs of the the 3510. In some
configs you
only get 2 ports. However, in others you can get 8.
Really? 8 acti
On July 31, 2006 11:32:15 PM -0400 Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're comparing apples to a crate of apples. A more useful comparison would be
something along
the lines a single R0 LUN on a 3510 with controller to a single 3510-JBOD with
ZFS across all the
drives.
I think the
Torrey,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:32 PM
>
> You might want to check the specs of the the 3510. In some
> configs you
> only get 2 ports. However, in others you can get 8.
Really? 8 active Fibre Channel por
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
On 7/28/06 10:11 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That said a 3510 with a raid controller is going to blow the door, drive
brackets, and skin off a JBOD in raw performance.
I'm pretty certain this is not the case.
If you need sequential ba
Torrey,
On 7/28/06 10:11 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said a 3510 with a raid controller is going to blow the door, drive
> brackets, and skin off a JBOD in raw performance.
I'm pretty certain this is not the case.
If you need sequential bandwidth, each 3510 only bring
Frank Cusack wrote:
On July 28, 2006 3:31:51 AM -0700 Louwtjie Burger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there
Is it fair to compare the 2 solutions using Solaris 10 U2 and a
commercial database (SAP SD
scenario).
The cache on the HW raid helps, and the CPU load is less... but the
solution costs
On July 28, 2006 3:31:51 AM -0700 Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there
Is it fair to compare the 2 solutions using Solaris 10 U2 and a commercial
database (SAP SD
scenario).
The cache on the HW raid helps, and the CPU load is less... but the solution
costs more and you
_might_
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Louwtjie Burger wrote:
reformatted
> Hi there
>
> Is it fair to compare the 2 solutions using Solaris 10 U2 and a
> commercial database (SAP SD scenario).
>
> The cache on the HW raid helps, and the CPU load is less... but the
> solution costs more and you _might_ no
Hi there
Is it fair to compare the 2 solutions using Solaris 10 U2 and a commercial
database (SAP SD scenario).
The cache on the HW raid helps, and the CPU load is less... but the solution
costs more and you _might_ not need the performance of the HW RAID.
Has anybody with access to these unit
21 matches
Mail list logo
