You guys have given me some great feed back. Thanks! Another question. As I try and configure this server which I'm getting for work, the key issue is its ability to have a lot of hot swappable disks. what I'm seeing these days is a migration to the 2.5" drives away from the 3.5". The problem is the 2.5" drives only go up to 1 terabyte, while the 3.5" drives go up to 6 terabytes. so what's up with this 2.5" drive bit. The literature says that they consume less power (the 2.5" drives) and are the favorite for data centers. But there's a factor of 3 difference between the storage capacity and size. so the problem is that I have very few options when it comes to buying a rack mounted server with 3.5" hot swap-able drives. there seems to be a lot more rack servers with 2.5" drive bays.
Can anyone recommend a system with 16 3.5" drive bays? On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 14:14 +0000, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote: > > From: [email protected] [mailto:discuss- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Bogstad > > > > Actual media that you can take physically offline may still have merit. > > I've heard tons of horror stories where some company's data, including all > backups, were destroyed instantly. Not just redundancy, but backups too. > > I know of ONE company, where the only reason the company survived was because > the CEO had a copy of the core IP on his iPod. > > Offsite and Offline. No substitute. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
