Alexander Georgiev wrote: >> Not necessarily from different vendors as much as from different build >> lots, etc. >> >> The theory is ... items build from the same components at the same time >> and the same place should fail/EOL at about the same time (all things >> being equal). >> >> In practice, I have not seen that. If you are concerned about it, >> getting drives from different factories or lots (but the same >> manufacturer) should be OK. >> > > I have seen 18 out of 20 gone in 2 weeks period. Those were 20 PCs > manifactured by IBM. I guess it must have been the famous Deathstar > bug. > > I am not sure if I can buy disks of different lots here(I live in > Bulgaria, where a rumour is spread, that hard disk on sale are from > lots that have failed the tests for robustness). > > What I can do is to spread the purchase in 4 weeks period - buying > each week a disk. I am not in a hurry on this project. > > However I wanted to do this in a 2 weeks period - buying each week one > Barracuda and one Hitachy. As I intend to use software raid which in > theory can even work with volumes on different channel types - like > using one external USB disk and one internal ATA disk, I was not > expecting problems mixing different vendors disks. > > BTW According to O'relly's book on linux hardware raid, the only > reason to choose disks from the same vendor is not to jeopardise > performance by combining one less performant disk with a more > performant one. > > As this is a rsync server - performance is not a requirement. The real issue with different vendors on hardware RAID controllers are things like firmware incompatibility. Combining different vendors adds different complexities ... where performance is one problem, stability is the problem I would fear if using different vendors in the same array.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
