--- Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (personally, I don't often have SATA disks in raid > which are actually busy all the time. but we're an > academic HPC site, so don't have anything like 24x7 > DB activity, or CERN-like streams of data...)
We do. We have lots of nodea and losts of storage-and a nice mix. We beat the snot out of our storage 24/7. A lot of is ATA. And even my buddy there who is in the global storage team like to look down his nose at it as he talks about his FC disks, and I have found that (1) I get great performance out of our storage-better than they do since it is tuned for performance; and (2) the failures are no-where near what I was lead to believe they would be. > but it's worthwhile to note that SCSI disks are > still dramatically more expensive than SATA. yes, > there are reasons, but even so, price/performance is > a pretty strong argument... Well, yeah! I don't see SCSI as anything to purchase nowadays. If you have to use something other than ATA might as well get FC. > well, for what it's worth, my organization bought > something like 6k > SATA disks over the past year, and have seen pretty > sparse failures. > (unfortunately, our book-keeping is probably not > good enough...) I have a CX700 full of ATA (except for the first tray of course) and after almost two year of beating the snot out of it we have had 2 disk failures over a year apart. In 4 hours the spare comes in and that's that. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
