22 Sep
2004
22 Sep
'04
2:25 p.m.
patrick> Funny you should say that Sellam.
I've been
thinking a bit patrick> about their business model since the
topic came up. If patrick> they're using RAID 0+1 (adequate
and cheaper than RAID 5 for patrick> this application), and
assuming they use "street" 73GB SCSI patrick> hard drives,
then, ignoring the processor the drives are patrick>
connected to, it would cost them over $400 for 73GB worth of
patrick> drives (a pair for 0+1, SCA), ...
Not to detract from your argument in this particular case, but...
Paul, I'm not really arguing a position, just puzzling over how they make it
possible to make enough money to be in business for as long as they've been.
RAID 5 is cheaper than RAID 1, because a larger
fraction of
the disk capacity is useful capacity.
I stand corrected! That's absolutely right.
Also, if you want capacity, you should be looking at
(S)ATA
disk based solutions, of which there are a bunch, not SCSI or
FC based. SCSI and FC are the ultra high performance
technology point, not the high capacity point.
Indeed, and I guess I'm kind of stuck on "classic" SAN hardware, which is
generally SCSI and FC. I think the really big SAN equipment is pretty much
all SCSI and FC, and I think for this application you need the economy of
scale that comes from a SAN with lots of drives and relatively few
processors, switches, and other supporting equipment. Every time you have
to add that non-storage stuff, you're just adding to cost of goods. I've
seen small SATA SANs, but not big 42-unit rack type things yet. Is anybody
making them yet? Using them?
Patrick