On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frank Cusack <fcus...@fcusack.com> wrote:
> On January 23, 2010 6:09:49 PM -0600 Tim Cook <t...@cook.ms> wrote:
>
>> When you've got a home system and X amount of dollars
>> to spend, $/GB means absolutely nothing when you need a certain number of
>> drives to have the redundancy you require.
>>
>
> Don't you generally need a certain amount of GB? I know I plan my
> storage based on how much data I have, even my home systems. And THEN
> add in the overhead for redundancy. If we're talking about such a
> small amount of storage ("home") that the $/GB is not a factor (ie,
> even with the most expensive $/GB drives we won't exceed the budget and
> we don't have better things to spend the money on anyway) then raidz3
> seems unnecessary. I mean, just do a triple mirror of the 1.5TB drives
> rather than say (6) .5TB drives in a raidz3.
>
> -frank
>
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get out of
6x500GB drives too. Are you really trying to argue people should never buy
anything but the largest drives available?
I hope YOU aren't ever buying for MY company.
--
--Tim
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
