Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:48:46 +0100 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are thumpers still interesting in 2011 ? (raidz3 on x4500 @ 3.0gbps ...) Message-ID: <CAFHbX1L3k%2B3cfatGnhTy_Hc8diMoj_cihiScjOOwWu0JVKXd-Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110711074139.GA77617@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <1309793921.2618.YahooMailRC@web120016.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <iuuvin$7vi$1@dough.gmane.org> <20110711074139.GA77617@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> wrote: > On 2011-Jul-05 14:20:39 +0200, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: >>It's a bit outdated, but here are the plans for a do-it-yourself >>slightly scaled down Thumper-like server: >> >>http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-c= heap-cloud-storage/ > > Note that that article doesn't address acoustic and vibration issues. > There's plenty of evidence that disks are very sensitive to vibration > - even at low levels, it will adversely impact performance. =C2=A0Designi= ng > a box to provide optimal throughput with 48 disks is going to need a > lot more attention to vibration isolation and damping than is shown. > Apart from the paragraph where they mention that they use nylon standoffs to provide vibration dampening? Cheers Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFHbX1L3k%2B3cfatGnhTy_Hc8diMoj_cihiScjOOwWu0JVKXd-Q>