4 ms·
It's also worth looking at their 72 disk, 2.5" version http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/417/SC417E16-R1400U.cfm http://www.supermicro.com/products
by e1ven 16y ago
It's also worth looking at their 72 disk, 2.5" version
http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/417/SC417E16-R1400U.cfm http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/417/SC417E16-R...
Using that, and 72 1TB 2.5" drives, (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136545&cm_re=1TB_2.5%22-_-22-136-545-_-Product http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136...)
(($109 * 72) / (72 * 1TB * .75) in dollars per gigabyte) = $.15/Gb
- wmf 16y agoYeah, basically 2.5" gives you the same space but twice the spindles for twice the price. Probably not worth it for archival storage.
- e1ven 16y agoAgreed. It'd be faster, but that's not really what we're looking for- We want to get the cost per GB to be as low as humanly possible, while maintaining at least an illusion of reliability.
- kaerast 16y agoSo store it all on one of those fake Chinese USB drives. That gives a nice illusion, and is incredibly cheap... Alternatively we could consider what level of reliability you want and how that will be tested.
- e1ven 16y agoIn my calculations I was doing elsewhere in the thread, I was assuming 1 drive out of 4 would be for redundancy. There's nothing on these drives that's irreplaceable, and we have system-level redundancy.
- fragmede 16y agoIt's worth noting at this time, that most SSDs only come in a 2.5" version. (Not for cheap bulk storage but because that's arguable Supermicro's intentions for this chassis.)
- justincormack 16y agoNo its not intended for SSDs. There is not nearly enough IO bandwidth for SSD to make any sense. 2.5 inch hard drives are what you use if you want disks with spindles not just big storage. Eg for virtualised database servers.