On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 "R.G. Keen" <k...@geofex.com> wrote:
In my case, I got 0.75TB drives for $58 each. The cost per bit is bigger than buying 1TB or 1.5TB drives, all right, but I can buy more of them, and that lets me put another drive on for the next level of error correction data.
That's the point I was arguing against. You did not respond to my argument, and you don't have to now, but as long as you keep stating this without correcting me I will keep responding. The size of the drive has nothing to do with letting you put another drive on, for more redundancy. If you want more redundancy, you *have* to buy more drives, whether big or small. If you're implying that because of the lower cost you can afford to buy the additional drive, that also clearly incorrect as the cost per bit is more, so in fact you spend more with the smaller drives PLUS the cost for the additional redundancy. Also, smaller drives require LESS redundancy for the same level of availability, not more. Of course, because drives are only available in discrete sizes you may end up with the same raidz level (1,2 or 3) anyway. -frank _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
