Re: [9fans] threads vs forks

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

On Sat Mar  7 09:39:38 EST 2009, jkw@eecs.harvard.edu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 08:58:42AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > i think that's why they put them in a 2.5" form factor with a standard
> > SATA interface.  what are you thinking of?
>
> No, the reason they do that is for backwards compatibility.

it's kind of funny to call sata "backwards compatability".  if
things go as you suggest — pcie connected, i think we'll all
long for the day when we could write one driver per hba rather
than one driver per storage device.

new boss, same as the old boss.

> > > SSDs are expensive on a $/MB basis compared to disks.  The good ones
> >
> > not as much as you think.  a top-drawer 15k sas drive is on the order
> > of 300GB and $350+.  the intel ssd is only twice as much.  if you compare
> > the drives supported by the big-iron vendors, intel ssd already has cost
> > parity.
>
> The Intel SSD is cheap and slow :-)

pick a lane!  first you argued that they are expensive. ☺

> Take a gander at the NetApp NAS filers or DataDomain restorers.

so you're saying that these machines don't differentiate between
primary cache and their write log (or whatever they call it)?

> My point isn't that it is a bad idea, just that it isn't
> likely to provide enough business to keep manufacturers
> interested.  Moreover, for capacity disks will keep on
> winning for a long time.  They just start to look more
> and more like tape.

no.  i agree.  worm storage in general is not a popular topic,
but the few companies that do use it pay the big bucks for it.

it's always great when the backup media is less reliable
than the primary media.

- erik