BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- Subject: [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: ozbek at gmx.com (F. O. Ozbek)
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:05:04 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAFrp2J3k_k1ULBmTKXUpSOQPOtF+YkiQu72QWUU=1nA9Au2ASQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20150703203041.9CCE7E2035@mail2.ihtfp.org> <5598038F.9070408@gmail.com> <sjm8uarevhe.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <559FED8A.9010407@borg.org> <559FF473.7010405@gmail.com> <559FFD2E.6090901@borg.org> <CAFrp2J3k_k1ULBmTKXUpSOQPOtF+YkiQu72QWUU=1nA9Au2ASQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/10/2015 01:15 PM, Gordon Marx wrote: > Clearly the answer is RAIN (Redundant Array of Inexpensive NASes). > I love it! Well, MooseFS is exactly that. RAIN. (Along with glusterfs, etc, etc.) > /me rushes to trademark, monetize > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Kent Borg <kentborg at borg.org> wrote: >> On 07/10/2015 12:36 PM, Richard Pieri wrote: >>> >>> The answer to this conundrum is simple: disks are consumables like toner >>> and paper and batteries. >> >> >> Certainly. But as with batteries, the technology changes, and there are >> qualitative consequences. For example, the Wikipedia article on RAID says >> that Dell recommends against RAID 5 with disks 1TB or larger on some Dell >> product-or-other, because the very act of rebuilding the array will possibly >> kill other old drives in your array before the data has been copied. RAID 6, >> as I understand it, is better by surviving two failures, but it only pushes >> the problem back and probably also becomes too risky with 2015-sized drives. >> >> I can imagine someone putting together a swell RAID 5 package of the >> slickest 8TB disks available, with plenty of spares to be extra safe, and >> after a couple years of great performance one disk dies and the rest commit >> suicide over the next few days in a sickening cascade as the array tries to >> rebuild itself. Performing admirably the entire time!--until the data is >> lost. Doesn't matter if the 8TB drives cost $50 or $800, they could all die >> in a horrible capacity-induced pile up, taking some vital 24x7x365 system >> with it. >> >> Declaring "they're consumables!" doesn't answer questions about how one >> would wisely fill up and use a 24-bay box. >> >> -kb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss at blu.org >> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
- References:
- [Discuss] NAS: buy vs. build
- From: derek at ihtfp.com (Derek Atkins)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- From: gcmarx at gmail.com (Gordon Marx)
- [Discuss] NAS: buy vs. build
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- Next by Date: [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- Next by thread: [Discuss] NAS: lots of bays vs. lots of boxes
- Index(es):