From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb  7 15:21:18 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BFB3E5
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  7 Feb 2014 15:21:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.physics.umn.edu (smtp.spa.umn.edu [128.101.220.4])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 643511847
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  7 Feb 2014 15:21:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from c-66-41-25-68.hsd1.mn.comcast.net ([66.41.25.68]
 helo=[192.168.0.138])
 by mail.physics.umn.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
 (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <allan@physics.umn.edu>)
 id 1WBnEp-0008Y7-PX; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:21:10 -0600
Message-ID: <52F4F9DA.4050309@physics.umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:20:58 -0600
From: Graham Allan <allan@physics.umn.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: krad <kraduk@gmail.com>
References: <52F1BDA4.6090504@physics.umn.edu>	<7D20F45E-24BC-4595-833E-4276B4CDC2E3@gmail.com>	<52F24DEA.9090905@physics.umn.edu>	<94A20D8E-292D-47B4-8D82-61A131B3010D@gmail.com>
 <CALfReydjsf_ZDRdsShWyXs1Ea4CWoBzi5m6P6ksuzW3aQJqkVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALfReydjsf_ZDRdsShWyXs1Ea4CWoBzi5m6P6ksuzW3aQJqkVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
 mrmachenry.spa.umn.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED
 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2
Subject: Re: practical maximum number of drives
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
Cc: FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:21:18 -0000

Was that question for me? Yes it is less redundant, but having a single 
HBA isn't so much worse than having the single server. I think we're 
after (1) massive space, (2) speed, (3) low cost, ahead of redundancy. 
True redundancy would need something much more elaborate - maybe using 
SAS drives instead of SATA to permit multiple paths, for one thing.

On 2/7/2014 2:35 AM, krad wrote:
> im confused by all this, do you need massive storage, lots or redundancy
> or just plain speed? If its redundancy, you kind of messed that up by
> going of one controller.