![]() I don't really understand what you're getting at with this thread. If it doesn't seem like a good analogy then forget it The same thinking would be behind deciding whether to purchase backup vehicles. You would buy multiple components for a storage system if downtime would be too costly and you had the money to spend on reducing the likelihood of that happening. The low price per GB is appealing, but this does seem to be a case of you get what you pay for?Ĭlick to expand.I'm not referring to redundancy of each of the internal components, just the general concept that an organisation may decide that it's worthwhile to invest in redundant equipment. Does that mean you really need two storage pods, and a third smaller server to be the controller for the replication? Do you ultimately need two storage pods and two small controller servers for redundancy?Īt which point is that setup approaching the price of a proper SAN, also accounting for the complexity of this setup and the lack of any kind of enterprise support? If you were to use this system in production you really need two of them to run them in some sort of replication setup. Then what? You have power supply redundancy, you can run a file system that provides drive redundancy, but you are still stuck with a single "controller", meaning the motherboard. So let's say you buy the Storinator, and buy 45 drives to drop into it. (Yes, if you have nothing but time you can build your own for some savings, but meh, that's not the issue.) Then there's a company called 45drives which sells the Storage Pod 4.0 under the name of Storinator at a cost of ~6.9K for the redundant PS version. See: Storage Pod 4.0: Direct Wire Drives Faster, Simpler and Less Expensive As many of you know, there's Backblaze which earlier this year came up with a direct wired (no backplane) enclosure for 45 drives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |