RE: Database design.

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Blanchard_Michael () emc com wrote:

> "regular" consumer drives are certainly not reliable enough for
> something of this scope.  Drive array manufacturers (not just us, I'm
> sure others as well) go through great lengths to ensure that the systems
> will withstand just about anything with a guaranteed zero loss of data.
>
>  At the risk of sounding like I'm praising the almighty EMC Symmetrix:  
> Heck, take a peek on www.emc.com, I'm sure there is a page that explains
> our testing of the symmetrix systems (this is our flagship product).  
> They can withstand like a 8.5 earthquake (and have in real life too),
> temps way down below freezing for weeks on end, temps way above 100deg F
> for weeks on end.  They really are built like tanks, down to the last
> component....

Great. But we don't get earthquakes in England, it never goes above 100F, 
and it only goes below freezing on the worst winter nights.

>   I'm positive that NetApp, IBM, etc all put their storage systems
> through similar testing, although I don't think they are all as thorough
> with their testing.

>   There isn't a consumer IDE or SATA drive that will withstand that kind
> of torture and not skip a beat.  The drive systems is certainly not the
> place to "penney-pinch" on a project as huge as the one the UK is going
> to undertake.

The drive systems are a very good place to economise by using the two 
ideas of redundancy and inexpensive drives. 

My point is that huge ultra-reliable do-it-all systems are great, but 
currently we're laying off nurses and can't pay our doctors. Maybe what we 
need is a cheaper system, and more nurses.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.