Thanks for the info. I am not really after big performance, I am already on SATA and it's good enough for me. What I really really can't afford is data loss. The CAD designs our engineers are working on can sometimes be really worth a lot. But still we're a small company and would rather save and buy SATA drives if it is "Safe" I now understand MTBF is next to useless (at least directly), the RAID optimizer tables don't take how failure rates go up with years, so it's not really accurate. My question now is if I will use high quality Barracuda nearline 1TB sata 7200 disks, and configure them as 8 disks in a raidz2 configuration.
What is the "real/practical" possibility that I will face data loss during the next 5 years for example ? As storage experts please help me interpret whatever numbers you're going to throw, so is it a "really really small chance", or would you be worried about it ? Thanks On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc Bevand <m.bevand <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > Well let's look at a concrete example: > > - cheapest 15k SAS drive (73GB): $180 [1] > > - cheapest 7.2k SATA drive (160GB): $40 [2] (not counting a 80GB at $37) > > The SAS drive most likely offers 2x-3x the IOPS/$. Certainly not > 180/40=4.5x > > Doh! I said the opposite of what I meant. Let me rephrase: "The SAS drive > offers at most 2x-3x the IOPS (optimistic), but at 180/40=4.5x the price. > Therefore the SATA drive has better IOPS/$." > > (Joerg: I am on your side of the debate !) > > -marc > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
