[Pigdog] Re: phasing out Solaris/Oracle/Netscape with
Luc.Vereecken at chem.kuleuven.ac.be
Tue Feb 20 04:28:24 PST 2001
At 07:01 16/02/01 -0800, Squid wrote:
>>just a note/question on the IDE raids, i've never had a system survive an
>>IDE disk failure with any kind of raid. the system has *always* stopped
>>responding on me. it stops all activity trying to update the failed disk,
>>and never recovers. are you using some kind of special controller that will
>>ignore a disk if it fails?
>"They are working on this in the next release".... (hahahaha).
>People want cheaper storage (IDE based) even if SCSI is already a fraction
>of what it was 2 years ago. It doesn't matter if SCSI is better for RAID
>high-av solutions, there are people who will want it cheaper and can
>justify in their minds that it is better to have an $80k system admin
>figuring out how to boot and rebuild a homegrown RAID solution after a
>failure than to have an entry level tech pull a drive tray and drop in a
I have a IDE based RAID (smartcans from raidzone, though they are no longer
sold except in NATs which is a pitty) that was a fraction (1/3th ?) of the
cost of a SCSI raid, and in which I can pull a drive tray and drop in a
spare without killing the machine, without being a fullgrown system admin.
It's fast enough to saturate the PCI bus, which would be the limit for a
SCSI-based solution anyway. I fail to see why I would need a much more
expensive SCSI-based solution when I can get it in IDE, costing me less
money, the same installation time and the same features.
More information about the Beowulf