Re: Re: 1TB Raid?

["John Andrews" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Managing many servers with raid configurations, the main cause we can see
of
failure rate seems to be heat dispersal.

i.e. 15k rpm SCSI drives fail far more frequently in the same server casing
than do lesser speed drives.

So slow speed drives and good air flow is my priority to maintaing running
drives.

Have fun everyone!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Poulton" <stuart.poulton@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: 1TB Raid?


> Hi,
>
> I know everyone has differing opinions on this subject.
>
> But I've got servers with both IDE raid and FC raid, and have seen no
> difference in failure rates between the two.
>
> There are a growing number of SATA based solutions appearing from the
major
> vendors where low cost, relativly low performance storage is needed.
>
> At the end of the day you pay your money depending on your
requirements.
>
> Regards
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ianh1000" <ianh1000@xxxxxxx>
> To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:35 PM
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: 1TB Raid?
>
>
> Hi All.
>
> Does Anyone here have an opinion/expierience with SATA?
>  From the comercial space where I work they look cheap but are not
> designed to run 24x7, the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) in
> comparison with SCSI is very poor. I would be happy to use them in a
> PC but not sure about a file server. I would prefer a solution that
> used a hot spare disk myself. I guess it depends if you could reload
> all the data if you had to. My configurations can use 500+ spindles
> so the chances of one failing are high. This is work not HA at home
> by the way. Perhaps I am justy paranoid?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>