1.5TB SAN for $35K -- this is how we do it...

Adam L. Beberg beberg@mithral.com
Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:10:22 -0800 (PST)


On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> Naively, I think that if they tried to run a high-throughput database on
> this SAN, it would not perform as well as some of the SAN solutions being
> sold for the big $$. The sound-file application has relatively low #s of
> reads/writes, with high volumes of data being sent on each, a very
> parallelizable task.

Actualy, FC and few-GB/spindle is exactly how you get really nice
performance. The 73GB drives would suck for a database, but 9's or 18's
scream.

On 18 Mar 2002, Luis Villa wrote:
> My only question is how a 70G harddrive is $700 if it isn't SCSI. It
> might be theft, as the article suggests, but maybe not of the same
> person the author thinks it is.

You can get the 73GB 10k RPM fibre channel drives in a 10-pack for ~3100.
Even run in a 4x5 RAID5 config it's cheap. If you go for the faster 2Gbit FC
they run you about 10$/GB.

> Luis [also curious how one could write an entire article of this sort
> without mentioning what OS it uses]

The OS is 100% totally and completely irrelivant to the article, the
application, and the users.

What matters is high RPM drives, good cards with alot of cache, and a
blazing 64bit memory bus. i.e. Intel sucks and will get you laughed at.

- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
  http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
  beberg@mithral.com