(OT) archiving as opposed to backing up

From: Patrick/VCM SysOp <patrick_at_vintagecomputermarketplace.com>
Date: Wed Sep 22 14:25:48 2004

> 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?

Received on Wed Sep 22 2004 - 14:25:48 BST

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