From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Apr 12 12:06:54 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA26696 for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.statsci.com (main.statsci.com [198.145.127.110]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA26674 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from statsci.com by main.statsci.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0u7oA5-000r3uC; Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:05 PDT Message-Id: X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 To: Chris Stenton cc: hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Micropolis 1991 AV 9GB Drive In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:59:20 +0100." Reply-to: scott@statsci.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:05:36 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Chris Stenton wrote: > Is there a better 9GB drive I should be going for ... any advice would > be appreciated. I'd go for multiple smaller drives...we've had a 9Gb drive fail on us - losing that much disk space all at once is a pain. We managed to find various chunks of free space on other drives on our network, then restored 9Gb from backups, then played some magic tricks with amd maps to get things back to "normal" until we could get replacement disk space. Going with multiple drives has advantages of reducing your grief if a drive crashes (seems chances of multiple drives going at the same time ought to be less than the chance of a single drive going). It also gives you multiple spindles to be getting data off from at the same time (I would think that would make aggregate performance better). Of course, this is all anecdotal, heresay, "it makes sense to me" information without any hard benchmark data to back it up... Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div) 1700 Westlake Ave N #500 scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109 Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org