RAID

[Anders Karlsson]

On 1/2/06, Mike Bird <mgb-ubuntu at yosemite.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 01:56, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> > Reliability can be on par, -ish, if you are willing to spend the money
> > on the hardware, but then if you do buy the proper servers why be a
> > cheapskate and try and drop the price by a percent or two by dropping
> > hardware raid? Usually, people cutting cost using software raid has
> > also cut cost buying cheaper hardware (in the sense that it is not
> > enterprise calibre hardware). Hence they will have more failures on
> > average.
>
> The expensive variant would presumably be RAED.

Well, SCSI or FC disks are still comparatively cheap, so the E is
still an I. Just because it isn't "dirt cheap with reliability
matching the price" does not automatically mean it is not still
inexpensive. I have seen SCSI disks fail, but usually after 5-6 years
of near 24/7 use. IDE disks on the other hand I have seen failures
after as little as 18 months. That is the difference between
"inexpensive" and "dirt cheap".

We can argue this until the cows come home. My view is that you get
what you pay for, and if you want reliability, you will have to fork
out for the good stuff. Running a business there is really no excuse
for not getting the proper kit in. Unless customers are prewarned that
really cheap kit is used and they pay less for what ultimately will be
lower service.

Ha en trevlig dag, :)

--
Anders Karlsson <trudheim at gmail.com>