From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] hardware support for the fs kernel
Message-ID: <20030312131122.K24866@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <lucio@proxima.alt.za> <200303121052.h2CAqmD13517@highwire.stanford.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200303121052.h2CAqmD13517@highwire.stanford.edu>; from James A. Robinson on Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:52:48AM -0800
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:11:23 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7f06d8aa-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:52:48AM -0800, James A. Robinson wrote:
> 
> Someone was pointing out the Nexsan ATABeast product, which advertises
> 13.4TB of disk starting at $40K (one assumes the 10.4TB they also
> advertise would be cheaper).  It may not be blazingly fast disk,
> but it's probably faster than optical, and is fairly cheap.  Just in
> the context of an ordinary IT operation, it does seem like this kind
> of hardware would replace optical jukeboxes, and next to it you would
> have an ordinary tape box for absolute disaster recovery (or you have
> an off-site mirror of the disk array).
> 
That covers Geoff's needs, in a fashion (and at a price, seeing as
you need two of them :-)

But it doesn't solve the problem of replication, which in fact
arises even in the scenario above.  In addition, replication is
multi-directional, although Geoff may not be interested in this
aspect.

++L