On January 24, 2010 12:20:55 PM -0800 "R.G. Keen" <k...@geofex.com> wrote:
I do apologize for the snottier parts of my reply to your first note, which I am editing. I did not get a chance to read this note from you before responding.
Oh not at all. Snotty is as snotty does. um, what that is supposed to mean is -- I deserved it. :) I'm sure I've said this 3 times already in different ways, but I just thought you were generalizing that if you bought smaller drives, which are cheaper, since the drives are cheaper that allows you to buy more of them and thus have more parity. This violated a primary assumption of mine, that you always buys drives solely based on how much data you need to store, and then you factor in the level of redundancy you require. By that assumption, you would always want to buy the drives which are the least $/GB and which your data still fits into nicely. (If you have 2.1TB of data, you wouldn't buy 2x2TB drives, and please ignore the loss due to base 10 vs base 2 and filesystem overhead in that statement.) I see that your goals are completely different. -frank _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
