Alex Samad <a...@samad.com.au> writes: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:06:30PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:54:11AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: >> > most enterprise site don;t use 1TB size disk, if you want performance >> > you go spindles, there might be 8 disks (number pulled from the air - >> > based on raid6 + spares) behind 1TB >> >> And if you want disk space and are serving across a 1Gbit ethernet link, >> you don't give a damn about spindles and go for cheap abundant storage, >> which means SATA. >> >> Not everyone is running a database server. Some people just have files. >> >> Raid5/6 of a few SATA drives can easily saturate 1Gbit. And for a very >> small fraction of the cost of SAS drives. > > true, depends on whos rule of thumb you use. I have seen places where > mandate fc drives only in the data center - get very expensive when you > want lots of disk space.
The only argument I see for FC is a switched sorage network. As soon as you dedicate a storage box to one (or two) servers there is really no point in FC. Just use a SAS box with SATA disks inside. It is a) faster, b) simpler, c) works better and d) costs a fraction. And hey, we are talking big disks space for a single system here. Not sharing one 16TB raid box with 100 hosts. > Also the disk space might not be need for feeding across the network, db > aren't the only thing that chew through disk space. > > the op did specific enterprise, I was think very large enterprise, the > sort of people who mandate scsi or sas only drives in their data centre They have way to much money and not enough brain. MfG Goswin PS: The I in RAID stands for inexpensive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org