On Sep 2, 2009, at 14:48, C. Bergström wrote:
o Goebbels wrote:
As some Sun folks pointed out
1) No redundancy at the power or networking side
2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
but...they
might not need it.
4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA controller chips used on a
variety of mainboards are already well known for their
unreliability and data corruption. I'd not want a whole bunch of
SiI chips handle 67TB.
5) Where's the ECC ram?
6) Management interface? lustre + zfs... I'm already bouncing
around ideas with others about an open "Fishworks".. Maybe this is
the boost we needed to justify sponsoring some of the development...
Anyone interested?
Redundancy is handled on the software side (a la Google). From
Backblaze's Tim Nufire:
... on redundant power, it’s easy to swap out the 2 PSUs in the
current design with a 3+1 redundant unit. This adds a couple hundred
dollars to the cost and since we built redundancy into our software
layer we don’t need it. Our goal was dumb hardware, smart software.
http://storagemojo.com/2009/09/01/cloud-storage-for-100-a-terabyte/#comment-204892
The design goal was cheap space. The same comment also states that
only only one of the six fans actually needs to be running to handle
cooling.
I think a lot of people seem to be critiquing the "Blazebox Pod"
criteria that it wasn't meant to handle. It solved their problem
(oodles of storage) at about a magnitude less cost than the closest
alternatives. If you want redundancy and integrity you do it higher in
the stack.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
