Quote:
|
Originally Posted by headhawg
I didn't nitpick; I asked legitimate questions because you were being vague, especially with regard to "space". I can't be held accountable for you being unclear. And if I really wanted to nitpick I would have asked to you explain these points:
"RAID 0 was the "standard" for PCs since disk was so costly" Huh? When did RAID 0 (or any RAID) become a standard for PCs? For gamers who wanted extra performance, maybe. But standard?? And RAID 0 is certainly not a standard in an enterprise environment because of the lack of fault tolerance.
"The example I've tried to provide is to simply point out that some of the old assumptions around RAID do NOT apply with SSD." Such as?
"One of the architects I work with wanted to create three RAID5 three drive arrays..." What "architect" would do that unless there was a compelling reason for it? Any reasonably competent IT person can do the math and determine the loss of drive space with three separate RAID 5 arrays vs. a single array.
I would have let this go but you made me reply to your veiled insults. Don't reply back; I've read enough. So has everyone else who has a clue.
|
I thought I was clear in my posts, and clarified them as best I could. But apparently not to your standard. Since Hcap's original post described two drives being configured as "RAID0", but as two different drive letters, I assumed the definition of RAID0 was extended a bit to simply mean stand-alone drives.
RAID 0, or more precisely, stand-alone drives, were the "standard" in PCs in the sense of cost. The PC I bought in '95 cost over $2K and had a single 1.2 GB drive. Having multiple drives or non-RAID0 arrays was out-of-budget for most, and rare in a PC. How does that not make a single drive the "standard"?
As previously explained, things like overall performance increasing linearly with the addition of spindles does NOT apply to SSDs. Reference the iperf tool results I outlined.
The architect's intent was to separate the arrays based on their workload, which again is common best practice when segregating the o/s, logs, cache, DB volumes, etc. It was the customer who balked at the capacity being chewed up, and with a single RAID controller I didn't think it would make much difference putting the nine SSDs in a single array.
I didn't realize I had such power to "make" you tap away at your keyboard and reply to my posts. I'm wasting whatever talent that is, since surely there are better ways to apply it. As for not replying to your post, why is that? You ask me questions, and then ask me not to reply. How old are you? Twelve?
I deal with customers like you on a regular basis. That would be the ones that latch on to a minor irrelevant point and take the project off course, the way you've done with this thread. One of the reasons I make a good living as a storage consultant is that I've got a pretty thick skin, and at the end of the day I've got much more of "a clue" than the hothead techies....
Since I've exhausted your patience and you've "read enough", I doubt I'll learn where I was wrong, but I can hope.
