On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:53:04AM +0200, Leif Nixon wrote: > Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm looking at getting some big storage. Of all the parameters, getting as > > low > > dollars/(month*GB) is by far the most important. The price of acquiring and > > maintaining the storage solution is the number one concern. > > Even at the price of reliability.
Yes, to some extent. ... > They are nice, I understand. And seem like a good approach. The > vendors will likely want to sell you SAN-ified systems with cluster > file systems and lots of Windows-only management software. It can take > some convincing to get them to understand that that is actually not > what you are looking for. Yup :) ... > > Any better ideas? Is there a way to get this more dense without > > paying an arm and a leg? Has anyone tried something like this with > > HSM? > > That is probably not worth the bother. I find it interesting (and surprising) how little people like tape :) > But something that you have to be prepared for when going to that > storage volume is that you *will* suffer data corruption at some > point, and you need to plan for it. See for example > > > http://cern.ch/Peter.Kelemen/talk/2007/kelemen-2007-C5-Silent_Corruptions.pdf > Thanks! > It's quite possible (though unlikely) for a hard disk to suddenly > return corrupted data without signalling a read error, and this is a > possibility that raid controllers typically just ignores. And then you > have the usual crop of software, firmware and hardware errors that can > trash your data more or less silently. It seems ZFS end-to-end checksums is not such a bad idea after all :) > At a minimum, make sure you keep checksums of all files so you can > verify their integrity. Thank you for the feedback! -- / jakob _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
