Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:11:46 +0200 From: "Michael Schuh" <michael.schuh@gmail.com> To: "Chuck Swiger" <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Needs suggestion for redundant Storage Message-ID: <1dbad3150604100511v6a0d27a9kb38920ee280dab2c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4436A2B4.4010608@mac.com> References: <1dbad3150604070754m6702e6acw2175c306504f3c13@mail.gmail.com> <4436A2B4.4010608@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Chuck, Hello @all, 2006/4/7, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>: > Michael Schuh wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > i need suggestions and hints about an redundant > > storage-system. > > > > My requirements are: > > a Storage that is available via Network, flexible in scalation, > > and must be redundant, and cheap if possible.... > > > > My Own suggestion was this scenario: > > > > 2 boxes very cheap for ~300$ > > 2 or more SATA-II-Controller ~30$(SIL) > > 4 or more Disks with 200-250GB ~100$/piece > > You've obviously chosen to prioritize cheap above anything else with thes= e > recommendations. :-) You simply can't spend less than a grand and expec= t > to get even one decent fileserver, much less a pair of machines. yes, the reason why i choose cheap HW is that we could get in the future an the pressure to spread the load from one to many syttems and the amount of Data to get very big, but is is no database-solution and the file-size grows up to 20-100MB but the Count fo Files can grow from many thousands up to many millions or billions. So that the "right" solution for this was a good SAN-System. But the Costs = can't pushed to the Customers so that an relatively simple and chead solution mus= t do the Work from an good SAN-System. My Projektleader would buy DELL-Machines, but in the fact of the work they = then do the costs get bored, and also our Projekt.Manager an the financier get bored....:-( so that i have sign a Solution with cheap HW, ok this cheap HW is not very stable and never so performant like the right Hardware, but if i use this solution, so i can relative fast replace defect items with new HW. The other plus is i hold over 2-3 years everytime relatively actual hardware-systems. And i agree with you if you say the costs over the years are more then the invest into rellay good hardware, but that is at this time not possible.......:-( > > Do not get a Silicon Image SATA controller. Why not? I usse one in my HOME-Box. Ok it has only 8K buffer for tagged Command queue, and it is not the fasten, but he is cheap an do his job (for a time :-) in general i agree with you it is smarter to use a Controller designed for Men's not for Boys..... :-) > > If you want to value redundancy and the ability to scale, you ought to lo= ok > at NAS or SAN systems, such as NetApp filers, or maybe even an Apple Xser= ve > and a Fibre-channel switch. yes i can also agree with you but the terms of condistions are described ab= ove, and dissallow this at the time.... > > Even if you're not willing to pay that much, you should at least consider > what those solutions offer for their pricepoints, and then decide what yo= ur > data is worth to you and what your requirements should be. > > At the very least, get a multiport SATA RAID controller with a decent-siz= ed > RAM cache of its own and an internal battery to keep the drives going unt= il > that cache can be flushed. As well as an external UPS, right...? > I can also agree with you.......but the management......get not my friends with this....... :-)) > -- > -Chuck > thanks and regards michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1dbad3150604100511v6a0d27a9kb38920ee280dab2c>