[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:43:47AM +0100, Max Siegieda wrote: > I should point out they've made some... inefficient choices there. For > example, for only a small increase in price they could get 8 port PCI-E > cards, there are also plenty of motherboards out there with more PCI/E > slots. The two PSUs are also a bit of a waste, since they could convert any > spare 12v current to 5v quite easily. > > I reckon they've just skimped out a bit, you could easily get each server to > hit 200TB usable. > > If you had a huge amount of money to throw at this there are even 24 port > cards for about £3,000 each, which gets the raw storage capacity up to 570TB > per server with maybe 500TB after formatting. Or perhaps they decided it wasn’t worth it. It’s possible that they didn’t want to concentrate too much of the storage in any one machine, and it’s not necessarily worth £3k for a 24-port card when they could just get another machine. -- Benjamin M. A’Lee || mail: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://bma.subvert.org.uk/ || gpg: 0x166891C7 “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html