Specs for server

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 21:12 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If you have hardware RAID, a drive failure shouldn't take the system
> > down at all.
> 
> Often not true. It's a lot better with SATA than PATA or SCSI. There are
> various ways failed devices can jam up busses and its not unknown for
> them to trigger controller bugs even in "brand name" setups. With SCSI
> busses it was all too common for a failed drive to jam an entire bus.
----
been there...a Dell server with an adaptec based 3Di controller. Lots of
fun. I have had software RAID on SCSI without going down too...I think I
was relating my anticipation of likelihood.
----
> Ideally you want the two halves of the mirror on different controllers
> but it depends how much resilience you need. As you get more serious it
> gets more and more pricy until you end up with the "mirrored servers
> separated by at least twice the crater size of a worst case airbus a380
> crash on the data centre"
> 
> and there *are* people who work to that spec ;)
----
I however am not one of them.

I have however become fond of serial-attached-scsi

Craig