|
wrote on Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:42:25 GMT: > Internal disk works great, but it's way more expensive than I > can justify. > You may find that after adding all the cost factors together that internal vs external isn't quite the difference you think. If you want the external disk to be directly addressable by OS/400 without inserting another server to "own" the disk, you'll be looking at a different price point than with FAStT type units. You mentioned this is for archive data. What type of data (database records or byte-stream-files)? Will your user community expect access to the archive to be as fast as access to production data? How concerned are you with the time it takes to move something to the archive? It may be that 145G internal drives, packed full, and in an IASP or user ASP will provide the price performance you need. Then again, 300GB 10K drives in an external storage frame may do the job, again these would be isolated from the system ASP to minimize performance impacts.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
