On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what does company with database access needs and 25 users do to keep as > much up time as possible?
Depends on the budget, etc. And what the requirements are. A hardware RAID controller has many problems - you have to make sure you have multiple identical controllers, in case it fails. I would guess that something like Google does for Adwords would be fairly reasonable. Software RAID that simply does mirroring - RAID 1 - would be useful, and not dependent on proprietary hardware. The biggest risks are with RAID that does striping or uses a hardware RAID controller. But they will get much higher up time by using Linux and running MySQL or PostrgeSQL, implementing high availability, like data replication to another server, etc. > The blog seems to be splitting hairs, instead of hardware RAID on one > machine, google seems to be employing hardware RAID across multiple > machines. Just because they aren't using specifically expensive hardware > RAID controllers, the writer admits google still uses software RAID. I guess you didn't have enough time to read it. It specifically says that Google uses software RAID for Adwords. And that Google uses no RAID at all for any other storage, like for Gmail or for indexing the Internet. Better to have multiple machines and multiple disks - they are relatively inexpensive. If one disk or one machine fails, there is zero impact. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
