archiving as opposed to backing up

From: Paul Koning <>
Date: Wed Sep 22 13:39:46 2004

>>>>> "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.

Received on Wed Sep 22 2004 - 13:39:46 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:31 BST