begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:40:58PM -0800: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tracy R Reed wrote: > > A couple of very interesting studies have come out recently about the > > reliability of hardware, specifically disks: > > Someone from netapp has replied to the Google and CMU drive reliability > studies: > > http://storagemojo.com/?p=388 > > Confirming what we suspected about SATA/SCSI/FC being the same > internally with the primary difference being the firmware. What I find
Which shouldn't be news to anyone, really. :-/ Interesting on the tradeoffs for enterprise/consumer-grade firmware, however, and why it's significant. > most interesting about NetApp's comments are how they rail against > RAID5. They say use only RAID1 or RAID6. This is in line with CMU's > suggestion that the odds of a double failure in a RAID5 is greater than > we think. I still haven't found a clear statement if that's in the case of "disks all from one lot" or not. > I'm going to have to look into using Linux's RAID6 support. > Hopefully it is production ready. With drives so cheap and throughput > being such an issue going to more smaller/cheaper drives seems like a > better idea all the time. You can get 15 disks per SCSI controller these days. How many disks per FC controller can you get, I wonder? -- Would like to see some info as to how much FC and SCSI fund the bottom line. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
