>>>>> "fc" == Frank Cusack <fcus...@fcusack.com> writes:
fc> if you have 100TB of data, wouldn't you have a completely
fc> redundant storage network
If you work for a ponderous leaf-eating brontosorous maybe. If your
company is modern I think having such an oddly large amount of data in
one pool means you'd more likely have 70 whitebox peecees using
motherboard ethernet/sata only, connected to a mesh of unmanaged L2
switches (of some peculiar brand that happens to work well.) There
will always be one or two peecees switched off, and constantly
something will be resilvering. The home user case is not really just
for home users. I think a lot of people are tired of paying quadruple
for stuff that still breaks, even serious people.
fc> Isn't this easily worked around by having UPS power in
fc> addition to whatever the data center supplies?
In NYC over the last five years the power has been more reliable going
into my UPS than coming out of it. The main reason for having a UPS
is wiring maintenance. And the most important part of the UPS is the
externally-mounted bypass switch because the UPS also needs
maintenance. UPS has never _solved_ anything, it always just helps.
so in the end we have to count on the software's graceful behavior,
not on absolutes.
pgpPp2ozffVKi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
