3 ms·

This is really, really unacceptable. I don't know how you screw something up this badly. HINT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Descr

This is really, really unacceptable. I don't know how you screw something up this badly. HINT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Description=tape+drive http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&#3... Additionally, I suspect we're going to see these customers really hesitate on future cloud-based services.

eli 17y ago
I'm guessing they have a lot more data than is practical to store on a tape.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  You do it by having redundant storage. I am admittedly not a good sysadmin, but I keep an eye on my own "pirate" server (that is, outside the realm of the corporate network) and I have already ordered additional storage because Munin shows that, at present consumption rates, we will run out of storage in about 4 months, crossing the 70% mark in three. I know they will take at about two months for corpotate IT to spend the US$ 100 it costs for a pair of disk-drives and that gives me a month to set-up a soft RAID before I cross the 70% mark. It's completely unacceptable not to have the storage mirrored and load-balanced on a second SAN. And mind you many SAN vendors even bundle software that makes it easy to do. Even if you don't have the budget to buy another SAN the same size, you can mirror the data rather easily with a bunch of servers, each with a bunch of SATA cards and a bunch of low-budget drives. Redundancy is the key here - if you have a drive that's 10x cheaper than the same storage in the SAN, you can replicate in a RAID1 with 10 drives. If each drive is 30% as reliable as the high-grade disks that go into the SAN, you are well on the winning side. And I seriously doubt there is that much data. How much? A couple dozen terabytes? That's fits easily under my desk. And quite probably in my discretionary budget.
wrinklz 17y ago
Perhaps scaring people from "the cloud" was part of the Borg's plan...

eli 17y ago

I'm guessing they have a lot more data than is practical to store on a tape.

rbanffy 17y ago
You do it by having redundant storage. I am admittedly not a good sysadmin, but I keep an eye on my own "pirate" server (that is, outside the realm of the corporate network) and I have already ordered additional storage because Munin shows that, at present consumption rates, we will run out of storage in about 4 months, crossing the 70% mark in three. I know they will take at about two months for corpotate IT to spend the US$ 100 it costs for a pair of disk-drives and that gives me a month to set-up a soft RAID before I cross the 70% mark. It's completely unacceptable not to have the storage mirrored and load-balanced on a second SAN. And mind you many SAN vendors even bundle software that makes it easy to do. Even if you don't have the budget to buy another SAN the same size, you can mirror the data rather easily with a bunch of servers, each with a bunch of SATA cards and a bunch of low-budget drives. Redundancy is the key here - if you have a drive that's 10x cheaper than the same storage in the SAN, you can replicate in a RAID1 with 10 drives. If each drive is 30% as reliable as the high-grade disks that go into the SAN, you are well on the winning side. And I seriously doubt there is that much data. How much? A couple dozen terabytes? That's fits easily under my desk. And quite probably in my discretionary budget.

wrinklz 17y ago

Perhaps scaring people from "the cloud" was part of the Borg's plan...