On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 09:05:11AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Additional advantage of zfs is that it can deal with the higher
> error rate of consumer or nearline SATA disks (though it can do
> nothing against enterprise disk's higher resistance to vibration),
> and also with silent bit rot with
Incidentally, we have a museum-type Data General 9-track tape reader,
which was carefully preserved and is now dedicated to recover
seismic reflection data of old research cruises from the
1970's and 80's.
(IMHO the Fujitsu readers were even better,
but nobody can find those anymore.)
Short from w
Joe Landman wrote:
> My biggest argument against tape is, that, while the tapes themselves
> may last 20 years or so ... the drives don't. I've had numerous direct
> experiences with drive failures that wound up resulting in inaccessible
> data. I fail to see how the longevity of the media ma
On 07/22/11 08:13, Joe Landman wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 01:44 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
> Either way, I think if someone were to foolishly just toss together
>> 100TB of data into a box they would have a hell of a time getting
> anywhere near even 10% of the theoretical max performance-wise.
>
On 07/22/2011 01:44 AM, Mark Hahn wrote:
Either way, I think if someone were to foolishly just toss together
> 100TB of data into a box they would have a hell of a time getting
anywhere near even 10% of the theoretical max performance-wise.
>>>
>>> storage isn't about performance any
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:55:59PM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:44:56AM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> > to be honest, I don't understand what applications lead to focus on IOPS
> > (rationally, not just aesthetic/ideologically). it also seems like
> > battery-backed ram a
