16 Feb
2007
16 Feb
'07
8:42 p.m.
Has anyone explained or showed this person a write-up on WAFL and NetApp's implementation of RAID-4 and now RAID-DP? ...how NetApp's version does not have a "hot" parity disk as all disks are excersized about the same? ...how RAID-DP is superior to RAID 1+0 and in an edge case is even better (if you loose the same disk in both plexs of a RAID 1, you have total data loss...you can loose any two disks with RAID-DP and loose nothing) ...how RAID-DP has very little overhead compared to NetApp's RAID-4? ...how NetApp's RAID-4 is faster than most hardware RAID arrays?
I could go on, and on, an on....(ask others that know me...plus 10 years at netapp helped)
--
--tmac
RedHat Certified Engineer
On 2/16/07, Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2
michael.miller.ctr@ustranscom.mil wrote:
>
>
>
> (This might show up twice)
> We are getting ready to stand up a 30+TB GIS app and I was wondering if
> anyone on the list has done something like this on a filer.
>
> The guy who will be running this doesn't think a filer would give him the
> performance required (not specified) and is also concerned that the parity
> drives will get beat to hard.
>
> He has been told by others that the only way to make this work as needed is
> to use RAID 1+0. This started out being required for all of the data but has
> been relaxed to just the indexes and current point of interest data.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Mike Miller
> General Dynamics Information Technology
> Michael.Miller.ctr@ustranscom.mil
> Michael.Miller@gdit.com
> Phone: 618-229-1185
>