Just thought I would let everybody know I saw one at a local ISP
yesterday. They hadn't started testing the metal had only arrived the
day before and they where waiting for the drives to arrive. They had
also changed the design to give it more network. I will try to find out
more as the custom
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Marc Bevand wrote:
> Tim Cook cook.ms> writes:
> >
> > Whats the point of arguing what the back-end can do anyways? This is
> bulk
> data storage. Their MAX input is ~100MB/sec. The backend can more than
> satisfy that. Who cares at that point whether it can
Tim Cook cook.ms> writes:
>
> Whats the point of arguing what the back-end can do anyways? This is bulk
data storage. Their MAX input is ~100MB/sec. The backend can more than
satisfy that. Who cares at that point whether it can push 500MB/s or
5000MB/s? It's not a database processing tran
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Marc Bevand wrote:
> Marc Bevand gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > So in conclusion, my SBNSWAG (scientific but not so wild-ass guess)
> > is that the max I/O throughput when reading from all the disks on
> > 1 of their storage pod is about 1000MB/s.
>
> Correction: the
Marc Bevand gmail.com> writes:
>
> So in conclusion, my SBNSWAG (scientific but not so wild-ass guess)
> is that the max I/O throughput when reading from all the disks on
> 1 of their storage pod is about 1000MB/s.
Correction: the SiI3132 are on x1 (not x2) links, so my guess as to
the aggregate
Bill Moore sun.com> writes:
>
> Moving on, modern high-capacity SATA drives are in the 100-120MB/s
> range. Let's call it 125MB/s for easier math. A 5-port port multiplier
> (PM) has 5 links to the drives, and 1 uplink. SATA-II speed is 3Gb/s,
> which after all the framing overhead, can get yo
On Sep 2, 2009, at 19:45, Michael Shadle wrote:
Probably due to the lack of port multiplier support. Or perhaps they
run software for monitoring that only works on Linux.
Said support was committed only two to three weeks ago:
PSARC/2009/394 SATA Framework Port Multiplier Support
6422924 sa
Probably due to the lack of port multiplier support. Or perhaps they
run software for monitoring that only
works on Linux.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Trevor Pretty
wrote:
Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it
in the
right situation
Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it in the
right situation although they have trimmed some corners that I wouldn't
have trimmed in their place. However, comparing it to a NetAPP or an EMC
is to grossly misrepresent the market.
I don't think that is w
Unless you have two or three or nine of these things and you spread data
around. For the $ 1M that they claim a petabyte from Sun costs, they're able
to make nine of their pods.
It is the claim of the cost from Sun that I am sceptical about. I admit
that it will be more expensive, and I kno
On Sep 2, 2009, at 15:14, Bill Moore wrote:
And I'd re-iterate what myself and others have observed about SiI and
silent data corruption over the years.
Most of your data, most of the time, it would seem.
Unless you have two or three or nine of these things and you spread
data around. For t
On Sep 2, 2009, at 14:48, C. Bergström wrote:
o Goebbels wrote:
As some Sun folks pointed out
1) No redundancy at the power or networking side
2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
but...they
might not ne
On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
but...they might not need it.
Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a
bit, even if the disks are better than average and can
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Roland Rambau wrote:
> Jacob,
>
> Jacob Ritorto schrieb:
>>
>> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they
>>> might not need it.
>>
>>
>> Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a b
Jacob,
Jacob Ritorto schrieb:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
but...they might not need it.
Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit,
even if the disks are better than average and can achieve 1000Mb/s each,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:54:42PM -0400, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>
>> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
>> but...they might not need it.
>
>
> Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit,
> even if the disks are better
IMHO it depends on the usage model. Mine is for home storage. A couple
HD streams at most. 40mB/sec over a gigabit network switch is pretty
good with me.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>
>> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
Torrey McMahon wrote:
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they
might not need it.
Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit,
even if the disks are better than average and can achieve 1000Mb/s each,
each uplink from the multiplier
Mario Goebbels wrote:
As some Sun folks pointed out
1) No redundancy at the power or networking side
2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they
might not need it.
4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA
As some Sun folks pointed out
1) No redundancy at the power or networking side
2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they
might not need it.
4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA controller chips used o
As some Sun folks pointed out
1) No redundancy at the power or networking side
2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they
might not need it.
On 9/2/2009 2:13 PM, Michael Shadle wrote:
Yeah I wrote the
Yeah I wrote them about it. I said they should sell them and even
better pair it with their offsite backup service kind of like a
massive appliance and service option.
They're not selling them but did encourage me to just make a copy of
it. It looks like the only questionable piece in it is
22 matches
Mail list logo
