Am 21.08.2009 um 19:08 schrieb Peter Kjellstrom:
> On Friday 21 August 2009, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>>> We have a few (p800). My opinion is that they're acceptable but
>>> not fast.
>>
>> Heard this a few times now, in the interest of getting something
>> better
>> next time, what have you found equally reliable but faster?
>
> Nothing as cheap as a full dl185 that's for sure unless you count
> SUNs thor
> (thumper ng) machines but then you'll have to do the raid part in
> software
> somehow.
Yeah, but that is as easy as
zpool create tank raidz2 dev1 dev2 dev3 dev4 dev5 dev6 etc.
zfs create tank/bigdisk
But I'd go one step further and use one of SUNs OpenStorage devices.
Once you have a lot of no-name JBOD SATA-drives, the inability of
Solaris to light-up the yellow light of the broken one will make it
painfully obvious that while one can spend to much on storage, one can
as easily spend too little...
;-)
If you really want to go with a HW controller, try Areca or the high-
end 3Ware models.
As mentioned in any ZFS document, when you use a HW-raidcontroller,
the OS never knows if a drive is broken or showing errors. The HW
hides that from the OS.
You have to have closed-source drivers like the HP utils to tell you
that.
If your data-set will, over the lifespan of that server, never grow
beyond the original size of the array, then you can go with a HW-
raidcontroller.
Otherwise, go ZFS.
Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
