From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pasi =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E4rkk=E4inen?= Subject: Re: Triple parity and beyond Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:23:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20131125182357.GE2924@reaktio.net> References: <528DCD36.1060808@hesbynett.no> <528DD86E.8040608@websitemanagers.com.au> <4544086.2UTvYHxkvM@russell.coker.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4544086.2UTvYHxkvM@russell.coker.com.au> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell Coker Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 07:12:39PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:30:49 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > I suggest that anyone in the future needing fast random write IOPS is > > going to move those workloads to SSD, which is steadily increasing in > > capacity. And I suggest anyone building arrays with 10-20TB drives > > isn't in need of fast random write IOPS. > > Traditionally SCSI/SAS disks have tended to be a lot smaller than IDE/SATA > disks. Now Dell has just started offering 2TB SAS disks while the largest SATA > disks that they sell (In Australia on PowerEdge T110 servers at least) are > also 2TB. Presumably RAID recovery time was one factor that made > manufacturers not bother with making larger SCSI/SAS disks in the past. > Dell has been selling 4TB SAS disks for a long time already.. one year, or something like that. -- Pasi