[Discuss] raid issues

[adler at stephenadler.com (Stephen Adler)]

You guys have given me some great feed back. Thanks!

Another question. As I try and configure this server which I'm getting
for work, the key issue is its ability to have a lot of hot swappable
disks. what I'm seeing these days is a migration to the 2.5" drives away
from the 3.5". The problem is the 2.5" drives only go up to 1 terabyte,
while the 3.5" drives go up to 6 terabytes. so what's up with this 2.5"
drive bit. The literature says that they consume less power (the 2.5"
drives) and are the favorite for data centers. But there's a factor of 3
difference between the storage capacity and size. so the problem is that
I have very few options when it comes to buying a rack mounted server
with 3.5" hot swap-able drives. there seems to be a lot more rack
servers with 2.5" drive bays.

Can anyone recommend a system with 16 3.5" drive bays?

On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 14:14 +0000, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
> > From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Bill Bogstad
> > 
> > Actual media that you can take physically offline may still have merit.
> 
> I've heard tons of horror stories where some company's data, including all backups, were destroyed instantly.  Not just redundancy, but backups too.
> 
> I know of ONE company, where the only reason the company survived was because the CEO had a copy of the core IP on his iPod.
> 
> Offsite and Offline.  No substitute.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>