> > Intel mainstream (and indeed many tech companies') stuff is purposely > stratified from the enterprise stuff by cutting out features like ECC and > higher memory capacity and using different interface form factors.
Well I guess I am getting a Xeon anyway > There is nothing magical about SAS drives. Hard drives are for the most > part all built with the same technology. The MTBF on that is 1.4M hours vs > 1.2M hours for the enterprise 1TB SATA disk, which isn't a big difference. > And for comparison, the WD3000BLFS is a consumer drive with 1.4M hours > MTBF. > > Hmm ... well, there is a considerable price difference, so unless someone says I'm horribly mistaken, I now want to go back to Barracuda ES 1TB 7200 drives. By the way, how many of those would saturate a single (non trunked) Gig ethernet link ? Workload NFS sharing of software and homes. I think 4 disks should be about enough to saturate it ? BTW, for everyone saying zfs is more reliable because it's closer to the application than a netapp, well at least in my case it isn't. The solaris box will be NFS sharing and the apps will be running on remote Linux boxes. So, I guess this makes them equal. How about a new "reliable NFS" protocol, that computes the hashes on the client side, sends it over the wire to be written remotely on the zfs storage node ?!
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
