kashani wrote: > I'm not sold on the Google approach. > > Assuming someone was to build nine data servers we're talking roughly > $3k per server (dual CPU, 4GB ram, raid 5 sata) or $30k with shipping > and tax. On top of that I now have to manage nine boxes and manage my > data in nine different places. These 9 servers are going to pull 18A of > power and uses 18U of rack space. Whereas $35k gets me an NFS/iSCSI/cifs > head (of admittedly third tier storage) and two 16 x 500GB shelves or
Obviously any approach has its ups and downs, the bottom line being how many resources can you throw at the problem. Regardless, running your entire business on a single piece of hardware is eventual suicide, because it will eventually fail. Having backups is great, but you still have to run your business if the equipment fails and you can't serve the images from backup medium. The ultimate solution involve a lot more than $30k, I will guarantee you that much ;) What it all boils down to is how much is your business worth to you and how much risk are you willing to take? When I don't have enough resources for the "ultimate solutions" (money) I prefer to minimize the risk by distributing the load with cheaper hardware... I wasn't really referring to servers by the way, something like NAS devices would probably be cheaper... Somewhat of a poor man's san. -- [email protected] mailing list
