From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin C.Atkins To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] x10 Message-Id: <20040408100802.29819b88.martin@parvat.com> In-Reply-To: <02bd01c41ca5$4745e100$0cc47d50@SOMA> References: <94b935e82432a8ccdc67aebb7ae5aee9@collyer.net> <02bd01c41ca5$4745e100$0cc47d50@SOMA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:08:02 +0530 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54bdddc6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:36:04 +0200 "boyd, rounin" wrote: > > ... or fossil/venti servers with RAID disks. > > i had this conversation with a mate of mine the other week. >... > we agreed that mirroring is simpler, less error prone and > now that disks are cheap going to RAID5 is a complete > waste when it can be trivially replaced with mirroring. This link, from the thread "Rob makes Dave Farbers 'vanity publishing' list": http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200404/msg00066.html also makes the argument that in a very big deployment - they have 100,000 servers, each with 2 disks (yes, I counted the zeros!) - RAID doesn't make much sense. I was convinced. Martin -- Martin C. Atkins martin@parvat.com Parvat Infotech Private Limited http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}