[CentOS] 8-15 TB storage: any recommendations?
cap at nsc.liu.se
Tue Jan 12 16:39:35 UTC 2010
On Tuesday 12 January 2010, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> >> Which is why I specifically said 'performance wise' as respects 3ware. I
> >> don't remember anything bad about 3ware stability wise or monitoring
> >> wise.
> > Is that supposed to be a joke? 3ware has certainly had their fair share
> > of stability problems (drive time-outs, bbu-problems, inconsistent
> > behaviour, ...) and monitoring wise they suck (imho). Do you like tw_cli?
> > Enjoying the fact that "show diag" gives you a cyclic text buffer without
> > references? etc.
> Oh, I did not hear of those and my last experience with 3ware was up to
> the 95xx series. I did hear of horror stories of Mylex but I myself
> never got to see one of those where the raid configuration would
> completely disappear. Most of my experience with 3ware is with the 75xx
> and 85xx cards which are only good for raid1+0 unless you can afford the
> major performance hit with raid5.
> > ...that said, it's not much worse than the competetion, storage simply
> > sucks ;-(
> So you are saying people dole out huge amounts of money for rubbish?
> That the software raid people were and have always been right?
Nope, storage sucks, that includes the software ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100112/bcba0065/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS