Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:16:24 +0100 (MET) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Cc: sbabkin@dcn.att.com, tlambert@primenet.com, jdn@acp.qiv.com, blkirk@float.eli.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, grog@lemis.com Subject: Re: SCSI Bus redundancy... Message-ID: <199803031816.TAA01286@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980303003418.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> from Simon Shapiro at "Mar 3, 98 00:34:18 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Simon Shapiro wrote... > > On 02-Mar-98 Wilko Bulte wrote: > ... > > > And apart from the work involved to get it implemented: how long would > it > > take a RAIDset to get re-organised/enlarged. Reason #1 for doing things > > like > > this is because you don't want downtime. And I don't want to think about > > some hardware failure (say a disk) halfway during this process. That > > would > > really result in a dis[k]array ;-) > > Nope... > > > 'Not everything that can be done should be done' > > Right!!! You must have tried it ;-) HP has something like this, but with a different implementation, I think it is called AutoRaid (?). They use RAID5 for 'cool' data and RAID1 for 'hot' data. This gives a nice compromise between cost (RAID1 is $$) and RAID5 (slower, especially on writes). They migrate between the raid levels based on data usage patterns. It was a very hot topic a couple of years ago, but in my experience this has cooled down quite a bit. Wilko _ ______________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Bulte email: wilko @ yedi.iaf.nl http://www.tcja.nl/~wilko |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands - Do, or do not. There is no 'try' --------------- Support your local daemons: run [Free,Net,Open]BSD Unix -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803031816.TAA01286>