With the advent of 2TB drives, you could easily combine 3 of these with software RAID 5 as you suggested. Depending on how long you need to keep the data, recording them to dual-layer blu-ray disks might be a better solution. Ya, it's a lot of disks (you can buy 100GB discs now), but they'll last longer and you don't have to worry so much about mechanical failure or needing a certain OS when you want to restore them.
There might be some benefits to you to sticking to SCSI vs. SATA, it really depends on your preference.
Both SCSI and SATA offload the main processor from the duties associated with reads and writes. SATA also now has optimized reading patterns just like SCSI. The only real advatages SCSI has right now are the speeds (SATA 150 (there is a newer faster one coming) vs SCSI 320). Also, most SCSI drives are desgined for 24/7 use, whereas most SATA drives are designed for desktop use. Just make sure the SATA drives you buy are made for Enterprise level operation. So it really comes down to compatability/speed vs. cheap/larger.
Hope this helps!
Ya, I can help out with that:)
www.hq.nasa.gov was never meant to handle all of the traffic load that it's getting right now (10Mbps steady, no break BTW). nasa.gov is made to handle that kind of traffic, but we (yes, we) didn't know that the history department was going to release the images on www.hq. Imagine our suprise... right now we are getting the site moved to another server that can handle this type of load. Problem is, that whole site needs to be moved (why they are not just taking the main images is beyond me - web development teams decision) which is 8.5GB uncompressed. Things will be better in about 7 hours after we get everything moved, till then, we're just watching the poor Ultra 2 get slamed. I think we'll all have a smoke after this one!
Slashdot Mirror
With the advent of 2TB drives, you could easily combine 3 of these with software RAID 5 as you suggested. Depending on how long you need to keep the data, recording them to dual-layer blu-ray disks might be a better solution. Ya, it's a lot of disks (you can buy 100GB discs now), but they'll last longer and you don't have to worry so much about mechanical failure or needing a certain OS when you want to restore them.
The cheapest way I can think of was exactly what I did:
Cheap PC case with plenty of drive slots and FreeNAS (www.freenas.org) Been working great!
I seriously doubt this, but maybe some of the big ind.'s are starting to listen... Get rid of the bloat and you'll make for a happier customer!
There might be some benefits to you to sticking to SCSI vs. SATA, it really depends on your preference. Both SCSI and SATA offload the main processor from the duties associated with reads and writes. SATA also now has optimized reading patterns just like SCSI. The only real advatages SCSI has right now are the speeds (SATA 150 (there is a newer faster one coming) vs SCSI 320). Also, most SCSI drives are desgined for 24/7 use, whereas most SATA drives are designed for desktop use. Just make sure the SATA drives you buy are made for Enterprise level operation. So it really comes down to compatability/speed vs. cheap/larger. Hope this helps!
Ya, I can help out with that :)
www.hq.nasa.gov was never meant to handle all of the traffic load that it's getting right now (10Mbps steady, no break BTW). nasa.gov is made to handle that kind of traffic, but we (yes, we) didn't know that the history department was going to release the images on www.hq. Imagine our suprise... right now we are getting the site moved to another server that can handle this type of load. Problem is, that whole site needs to be moved (why they are not just taking the main images is beyond me - web development teams decision) which is 8.5GB uncompressed. Things will be better in about 7 hours after we get everything moved, till then, we're just watching the poor Ultra 2 get slamed. I think we'll all have a smoke after this one!
Atleast I'm glad I can see the staging server for www.hq ;) hahaha...
Slashdot definitely hit...
MapQuest for Directions and Map Point for maps... Both are good for different reasons :)
Never been first, feels kind of good.... OnT: I'd love to see some of this stuff come to light :)
Sabre