kashani wrote: > Running through the Dell storage page you end up spending $20k (list) > for their 12 SATA drive NAS device w/ 3year NBD, dual PS, etc. RAID 6 it > up and you've got 5TB usable. I'm sure there are cheaper options (feel > free to point them out), but I don't think you're going to save that > much over going directly to an iSCSI/NFS SAN with a second or third tier > vendor... ie not Netapp or EMC. And you've got to manage x number of > boxes, don't get volume management, snapshots, etc, and still have to > shuffle data around manually for backups or at least hot storage.
An example of cheaper nas boxes: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT3184179979.html > How about the question, "Is losing 20% of your data any better than > losing 100% of your data?" IMO data loss is data loss whether it's > complete or partial. Of course assuming you have backups restoring 20% > is easier so it's possible I'm wrong here. I'm still not buying the > scenario where managing nine single points of failure is better than > managing one. And I think I can eliminate all the single points in a > single large system easier then rewriting my application to round robin > across 15 data stores that contain partial backups of each other. Frankly if you are attempting to manage 9TB of data for customers and managing 9 systems scares you, you need to start thinking about a change in career choices. Where are these 15 data stores you are talking about? The point to distributing the load to more devices is not to limit loss to 20%. It is to make it easier to back up, restore, replicate, upgrade, maintain, administer, provide higher availability, redundancy, etc... Google "google file system" to bone up on the concept... Other options are investing your entire business on a single point of failure (single device), sans which can be clustered/raided, or using some service like akamai and not dealing with it at all ;) -- [email protected] mailing list
