(OT) archiving as opposed to backing up

From: Paul Koning <pkoning_at_equallogic.com>
Date: Wed Sep 22 14:43:12 2004

>>>>> "patrick" == patrick <Patrick> writes:

>> 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.

 patrick> Indeed, and I guess I'm kind of stuck on "classic" SAN
 patrick> hardware, which is generally SCSI and FC. I think the
 patrick> really big SAN equipment is pretty much all SCSI and FC, and
 patrick> I think for this application you need the economy of scale
 patrick> that comes from a SAN with lots of drives and relatively few
 patrick> processors, switches, and other supporting equipment. Every
 patrick> time you have to add that non-storage stuff, you're just
 patrick> adding to cost of goods. I've seen small SATA SANs, but not
 patrick> big 42-unit rack type things yet. Is anybody making them
 patrick> yet? Using them?

We make them, and our customers use them. 14 drive building blocks,
which combine into groups for bigger configurations (more space, more
speed). 4 unit groups (16 TB) are common. We have run internal tests
quite a lot larger than that.

Some people would like you to believe that iSCSI and SATA are only for
the low end. Don't believe them, it's not true.

Received on Wed Sep 22 2004 - 14:43:12 BST

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