Hi Ron, Agreed, we should have 4 nights of backup storage on the mountain (2 copies times 2 nights).
Jeff > From: Ronald Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: LSST Data Management <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:07:24 -0400 > To: LSST Data Management <[email protected]> > Subject: [LSST-data] Network equipment > > I have been reviewing MTBF for Cisco network equipment in order to > get some idea of reliability. Each component of a Cisco machine has > rated an MTBF >150,000hrs, so putting standby Processor engines and > power supplies could be overkill but would protect us against any > eventuality at approx. 35% cost increase. This was included in any > quotes I have made up. > These figures are rated at optimal cooling in the computer room. > My feeling is that current disk MTBF is much less than that figure, > and would propose writing a minimum of two sets on the summit to > maintain data integrity. If we have to drive disks down the mountain > in case of fibre failure we don't want that to be the only copy. > ron > _______________________________________________ > LSST-data mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data > _______________________________________________ LSST-data mailing list [email protected] http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
