[Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Bill Rankin wrankin at ee.duke.eduMon Oct 8 05:05:22 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Next message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:38 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote: > I would argue that the situation you describe is a result of that > particular RAID adapter or that particular make and model is just > inappropriate (no offense) None taken. I should have been clearer on the point I was trying to make. First the clarifications: I never meant to imply that RAID is a backup substitute. Treating it as such is foolish in a production environment for many obvious reasons. I mentioned the backup issue here (it was a failure of the existing backup system, not a standard policy) to explain why the group in question had to go to such lengths to restore the data that was on the disks. The main point that I was trying to make was the the proprietary nature of the HW raid controller that they used made recovery from a double disk failure a much more lengthy and expensive process than it would have been with the software implementation (in this specific case). For an inexpensive/small installation, I personally feel that software raid allows for better control and management of resources with a minimal (if any) performance hit. That's all I really wanted to say. -bill "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player" rankin
- Previous message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Next message: [Beowulf] 32 nodes cluster price
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
