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
Bill Moore Bill.Moore at 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,
Marc Bevand m.bevand at 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
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Marc Bevand m.bev...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc Bevand m.bevand at 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.
Tim Cook tim at 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
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Marc Bevand m.bev...@gmail.com wrote:
Tim Cook tim at 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Ritortojacob.rito...@gmail.com wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
3) Performance isn't going to be that
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 than
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 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Roland Rambauroland.ram...@sun.com 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
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 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
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
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
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 trevor_pre...@eagle.co.nz
wrote:
Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
