i've read in the past somewhere that the Google File System is capable
of having many copies of the data. often having 4 copies on different
nodes. and as you say run the query to many of them. if one fails there
are still 3, if another there are still 2. i've also read somewhere else
that if o
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Jim Lux wrote:
> I think it's pretty obvious that Google has figured out how to
> partition their workload in a "can use any number of processors" sort
> of way, in which case, they probably should be buying the cheap
> drives and just letting them fail (and stay failed.. it's
Linux nitrogen 2.6.15-amd64-smp-vs #1 SMP Tue Apr 25 09:54:14 CEST 2006 x86_64
GNU/Linux
smartctl version 5.32 Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen
the machine I checked has 5.33, and 5.36 is the date on the sources I
grabbed in early dec. the machine in question is running HP XC 3.0,
based on R
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:45:50PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> I use smartctl - the smart support in libata
> entered the mainstream 2.6.15 kernel (2006-01-03!)
I've got
nitrogen:~# uname -a
Linux nitrogen 2.6.15-amd64-smp-vs #1 SMP Tue Apr 25 09:54:14 CEST 2006 x86_64
GNU/Linux
but
nitrogen:~#
snip
>
> One failing I see of many cluster applications is that they are quite
> brittle.. that is, they depend on a particular number of processors
> toiling on the task, and the complement of processors not changing
> during the "run". But this sort of thing makes a 100 node cluster no
> diffe
over consumer SATA. Btw -- smartd doesn't seem to be able to handle
SATA, at least, last time I tried.
http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#testinghelp
How do you folks gather data on them?
I use smartctl - the smart support in libata
entered the mainstream 2.6.15 kernel (2006-01-03!)
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:19:19PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Ictually I'd bet that's most of the 5400rpm disks would be maxtor
> maxline II nearline drives, netapp also used then in several filers.
> They were the first 300GB drive by a couple of months and came with a 5
> year warranty... I ha
Mark Hahn wrote:
>> Failure rate vs. drive speed (RPM)?
>
> surely "consumer-grade" rules out 10 or 15k rpm disks;
> their collection of 5400 and 7200 disks is probably skewed,
> as well (since 5400's have been uncommon for a couple years.)
Ictually I'd bet that's most of the 5400rpm disks would
