22 Sep
2004
22 Sep
'04
1:39 p.m.
>>>> "patrick" == patrick
<Patrick> writes:
> > A useful service I admit. You could implement
this by simulating
> a > remote "mount" using an ssh tunnel, or (ugh) NFS.
>
> I'd like to, since even at the lowest service level (5GB) I think
> the $9.95 per month charge is a bit much, at least for a cheap
> bastard like me.
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...
RAID 5 is cheaper than RAID 1, because a larger fraction of the disk
capacity is useful capacity.
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.
paul