I dont think that's necessarily true. If you were to do a cost-benefit analysis between traditional 15k drives and SSDs (or EFDs), you might be surprised what you find.
Take an Exchange server that experiences an incredible amount of read IO at the information store. You might need 10 traditional spindles to meet demand, but only 2 SSDs. If the 15k drives cost $1000 a piece, and the SSDs cost $5000 a piece, it might make more sense to go the SSD route. Obviously storage capacity needs to be taken into consideration as well. - Sean On Oct 17, 2009, at 3:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: > We need prices to fall significantly to reap the benefits of the > sizes we need. > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > From: Andrew Levicki <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:12:41 +0100 > To: NT System Admin Issues<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 | Storage Bits | ZDNet.com > " > > In my opinion, we're on the cusp of seeing solid state storage > becoming the norm and we will be able to put hard drives out to > pasture or use them more for backups than tapes. > > Although we have much faster hard disks nowadays than ever, it's > amazing that we are still at the behest of such a mechanical device > for our mission / business critical data. Solid state FTW. > > Regards, > > Andrew > > 2009/10/17 Angus Scott-Fleming <[email protected]> > Scaremongering, or legitimate things to worry about? Lots of the > "Talkback" > comments are that ZDNet is over the top these days, but it seems to > me he's got > some legitimate points. > > ------- Included Stuff Follows ------- > Why RAID 5 stops working in 2009 | Storage Bits | ZDNet.com > > Disks fail > ÿÿ While disks are incredibly reliable devices, they do fail. Our be > st data - > ÿÿ from CMU and Google - finds that over 3% of drives fail each year > in the > ÿ first three years of drive life, and then failure rates start ri > sing fast. > > ÿ With 7 brand new disks, you have ~20% chance of seeing a disk fa > ilure each > ÿ year. Factor in the rising failure rate with age and over 4 year > s you are > ÿÿ almost certain to see a disk failure during the life of those dis > ks. > > ÿÿ But yoÿ´re protected by RAID 5, right? Not in 2009. > > ÿ Reads fail > ÿ SATA drives are commonly specified with an unrecoverable read er > ror rate > ÿÿ ÿ (URE) of 10^14. Which means that once every > 100,000,000,000,000 bits, the > ÿ disk will very politely tell you that, so sorry, but I really, t > ruly caÿ´t > ÿ read that sector back to you. > > ÿ One hundred trillion bits is about 12 terabytes. Sound like a lo > t? Not in > ÿÿ 2009. > > Disk capacities double > ÿÿ Disk drive capacities double every 18-24 months. We have 1 TB dri > ves now, > ÿÿ ÿ and in 2009 wÿ´ll have 2 TB drives. > > ÿÿ ÿ With a 7 drive RAID 5 disk failure, yÿÿ´ll have 6 > remaining 2 TB drives. > ÿÿ As the RAID controller is busily reading through those 6 disks to > ÿÿ reconstruct the data from the failed drive, it is almost certain > it will > ÿ see an URE. > > ÿ So the read fails. And when that happens, you are one unhappy ca > mper. The > ÿÿ message "we cÿÿ´t read this RAID volume" travels up the chain > of command > ÿÿ ÿ until an error message is presented on the screen. 12 TB of > your carefully > ÿÿ ÿ protected - you thought! - data is gone. Oh, you didÿ´t > back it up to > ÿÿ tape? Bummer! > > --------- Included Stuff Ends --------- > More here with links: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 > > > -- > Angus Scott-Fleming > GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona > 1-520-290-5038 > +-----------------------------------+ > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
