INN 2.3x and hardware

Jaye Mathisen mrcpu at internetcds.com
Fri Sep 22 22:03:26 UTC 2000



This sounds terrible to say, but I'm using the IBM 75GB IDE drives, and
Promise IDE ultra 66 cards, and they're working fine.

There's also a IDE-SCSI converter box that looks quite interesting from
zero-d, but it isn't here yet.  When it gets here, I'll be very interested
to see it in action.

All in all, I've been very happy with my all IDE setup, and it's
cheap.  There are the purists what will tell you that SCSI's the only way
to go, and if you can afford it, that's what I'd do as well.  But this was
easy, and cheap, and it's been solid for about 4 months now.  The only
issues have been with ovdb, which aren't related to hardware.

I have 12 IDE drives in the box, plus 4 drives striped in a raid 0 for
overview.  

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Mike Fagan wrote:

> 
> At 09:20 AM 9/22/00, Bettina Fink wrote:
> 
> >Mathieu Arnold <mat at mat.cc> wrote:
> >
> > >> We are big fans of NFS storage solutions (NetApp, EMC=B2), but if
> > >> this will not work: What are others using? Two people suggested
> > >> Compaq storage solutions, anything else?
> > >
> > > I do not see the point of using reliable storage for the spool.
> > > spool can always be recovered by asking one or more feeder to
> > > refed it's whole spool.
> >
> >But that's always trouble for the users (seeing articles twice,
> >losing thread beginnings, downtimes etc.). And our current trad
> >spool on NetApp has also a very good performance. But what to
> >use as hardware is a question of philosophy (and money) ... ;-)
> 
> I'm attempting to put together a disk array for our server to replace our=20
> NetApp, which besides being slow for us, is maxed out drive-space wise.
> 
> We're looking at the Compaq drive arrays, mostly because we've got all=20
> Alpha servers in house, and have a huge support contract with them.  But=20
> the problem here is that the 10kRPM 36GB SCSI-3 disks for these things run=
> =20
> around 2k a pop.  We can end up getting the whole managed, raided shelf=20
> with cache and the works for around 8k, add to that 40k for the 500GB of=20
> space we want to add to it.  We could go with plain non-raided shelves and=
> =20
> it would still cost us an arm and a leg just for the drives.
> 
> Anyone know of a cheaper, reliable solution?  Getting money for the news=20
> server is like pulling teeth around here... :(
> 
> Mike, Sr. Systems Analyst @ Info Avenue Internet Services
> 
> 
> 




More information about the inn-workers mailing list