One argument against spinning the disk down, is the on/of power cycles can
kill it faster than just leaving it on... Just like a light bulb.
At 12:17 PM 4/8/00, dek_ml wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Mike Bilow wrote:
>
> > Why on earth would you even bother with RAID on a machine which can
> > experience 30 minutes of idle time? We only use RAID for machines which
> > run web servers, mail servers, name servers, and things like this. Such
> > machines here never exeperience even a solid minute of idle time.
> >
> > -- Mike
>
>Look at what "problem" RAID was designed to solve and you'll see the
>answer to your question. RAID exists to provide higher performance,
>higher reliability, and greater scalability than single large disks.
>
>I can think of a very good example of a system with 30 minutes of idle
>time: a fileserver serving up a data disk which is used frequently
>9-5 while the staff is in the office, but only sporadically during the
>night.
>
>Now, the question really is "should my RAID disks spin down"? Well,
>why do disks spin down? To increase longevity? To decrease power
>consumption? I can't see either of those being valid arguments in a
>RAID environment because 1) individual drive longevity is not important in
>RAID- when a disk fails you replace it and 2) if you're doing something
>important enough for RAID, you can probably afford the extra power draw
>:-)
===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Packet: N5XMT@KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================
