Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:20:58 -0600 From: Graham Allan <allan@physics.umn.edu> To: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: practical maximum number of drives Message-ID: <52F4F9DA.4050309@physics.umn.edu> In-Reply-To: <CALfReydjsf_ZDRdsShWyXs1Ea4CWoBzi5m6P6ksuzW3aQJqkVg@mail.gmail.com> References: <52F1BDA4.6090504@physics.umn.edu> <7D20F45E-24BC-4595-833E-4276B4CDC2E3@gmail.com> <52F24DEA.9090905@physics.umn.edu> <94A20D8E-292D-47B4-8D82-61A131B3010D@gmail.com> <CALfReydjsf_ZDRdsShWyXs1Ea4CWoBzi5m6P6ksuzW3aQJqkVg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Was that question for me? Yes it is less redundant, but having a single HBA isn't so much worse than having the single server. I think we're after (1) massive space, (2) speed, (3) low cost, ahead of redundancy. True redundancy would need something much more elaborate - maybe using SAS drives instead of SATA to permit multiple paths, for one thing. On 2/7/2014 2:35 AM, krad wrote: > im confused by all this, do you need massive storage, lots or redundancy > or just plain speed? If its redundancy, you kind of messed that up by > going of one controller.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F4F9DA.4050309>