From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:26:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:26:56 -0400 Received: from epithumia.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.2]:13249 "EHLO epithumia.math.uh.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:26:56 -0400 To: Daniel Phillips Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove 2TB block device limit In-Reply-To: <15588.18673.317088.198281@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 17 May 2002 10:26:48 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "DP" == Daniel Phillips writes: DP> Incidently, the 200 TB high-end servers are a lot closer than you DP> think. Perhaps the "low-end server" is a more interesting case, though. After all, you can put over 4TB in one machine now for somewhere near $12K. (32 160GB IDE disks on four 3ware 7850 cards running RAID5, all striped into one huge "RAID50" array.) This is only going to get cheaper, and when someone out-does Maxtor for the "big IDE disk" crown, the capacity will jump again. Of course it doesn't have the same performance or extreme reliability of the more expensive solutions, but hey, it only costs $12K. Still, 16TB done this way looks to be a few years away yet. - J<