Yeah, the DAS we are considering is Dell MD3000, it has redundant hot swappable raid controllers in active-active mode. Provision for hot spare hard-disk. And it can take upto 15 disks in 3U, you can attach two more MD1000 to it, giving a total of 45 disks in total.
-- Harsh On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Decibel! wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:09:00PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:55:51PM -0500, Decibel! wrote: > >>> Also, to reply to someone else's email... there is one big reason to > use > >>> a SAN over direct storage: you can do HA that results in 0 data loss. > >>> Good SANs are engineered to be highly redundant, with multiple > >>> controllers, PSUs, etc, so that the odds of losing the SAN itself are > >>> very, very low. The same isn't true with DAS. > >> > >> You can get DAS arrays with multiple controllers, PSUs, etc. DAS != > >> single disk. > > > > It's still in the same chassis, though, which means if you lose memory > > or mobo you're still screwed. In a SAN setup for redundancy, there's > > very little in the way of a single point of failure; generally only the > > backplane, and because there's very little that's on there it's > > extremely rare for one to fail. > > not nessasarily. direct attached doesn't mean in the same chassis, > external drive shelves attached via SCSI are still DAS > > you can even have DAS attached to a pair of machines, with the second box > configured to mount the drives only if the first one dies. > > David Lang > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Harsh Azad ======================= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
